Hi Kenny, that is absolutely fine, and I don't necessarily have a problem with that per se (quoting the jump between overnights and consolidated - what else can you do?), but to ritually say that VOSDAL is not timeshift is just incorrect, it is timeshift, and its a very interesting behaviour pattern, it is a shame these figures are not more readily diseminated by media publishers but as a behaviour it is real and significant. On average across all programmes VOSDAL contributes around 40-45% of all 7 day timeshift.

So it went from.

Sat 26/08: 8.40m (36.1%), +1: 475k (2.2%) = 8.88m inc +1 to 10.127 including +1. Similar timeshifts to last year?

Hi Neil, hopefully you will find this interesting.
So, DW Impossible Astronaut

So, if it follows that trend we should get another 1m onto 7.4m we currently have for Saturdays Doctor Who.

In answer to your question, I think there is a minimum delay before it is counted as non-live, I think this is in the realms of 20 seconds, so if its paused and played back before that, its still live...

The repeats on other channels seem stable it's the main one that has dropped. Interesting.

Parade's End loses a million
Grauniad
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...ght-tv-ratings

I have, friends again.

Trickytree this really is very interesting stuff. Thanks for posting.

On the Doctor Who Ratings thread they are saying that Asylum of the Daleks scored 89 on the AI index.

http://www.doctorwhonews.net/2012/09...daleks-ai.html

This fundamentally misrepresents the argument being made with regards to level playing fields.

The point is not that that relative to other shows Doctor Who's overnights performance is under performing. Nor is the point that Doctor Who's overnights should be compared to everything else on television and judged by that standard. Indeed I've said several times this week alone that television ratings are a game of expectations and that any given show and channel have their own set of expectations and that therefore any and every show must be judged on those. The very specific point being made is that Doctor Who is the only show on television when any criticism of its overnight rating is followed by a parade of posts declaring that 'overnights are meaningless' and that 'it timeshifts really well' and 'look at its iPlayer stats' and then (somewhat bizarrely I think) 'but anyway if any other show were getting those numbers...'

My point is that if you're going to make this argument for Doctor Who then you have to make this argument across the board at least as far as BBC shows are concerned. And yet that doesn't happen. On Tuesday morning a few posters commented on New Tricks being lower than expected. I don't recall there being a parade of posts telling people to wait for the officials and to keep an eye on its iPlayer stats. Sure New Tricks might not do as well as Doctor Who in these areas but presumably there are still viewers that watch in this way and frankly it doesn't need to do as well as Who because its working from a larger base. Waterloo Road has been plagued by 'looks low' comments but again no talk of timeshifts or iPlayer there. The point is you can't simply pick and chose which shows timeshifts and catch-up viewing matters for.

But of course the counter point to all of this is that nothing hits the kind of highs as Doctor Who does in regards to timeshifts and catch-up viewing. That may very well be true but it doesn't matter. That fewer people are watching via this method doesn't suddenly make that method irrelevant. So either you accept that judging Doctor Who via its overnights its perfectly fair and reasonable or every time someone criticises a BBC show for being low in the overnights you sing the same song about overnights being meaningless and that officials and catch-up figures are what really matter. In fact maybe we should start a campaign to just stop reporting BBC overnights altogether. After all they're meaningless. We should just wait for the officials and report those instead because that's where the valuable information is. Any analysis from overnights is unfair and working from incomplete data after all.


With the exception of one delusional poster I haven't seen a single person suggest that Doctor Who is a disaster zone that will send the BBC into a panic. People have certainly criticised the overnight number or at the very least suggested that's lower than expected but equally everyone is in agreement that it'll timeshift well etc. etc. The specific point being made is that the overnight is lower than expected and probably lower than it should be. That doesn't translate to Doctor Who is at death's door.

I also just want to point out that an impressive timeshift doesn't negate an impressive overnight rating. There seems to be an emerging idea amongst Doctor Who fans that the two are mutually exclusive and they aren't. If memory serves both Downton Abbey and Sherlock and boast pretty impressive timeshifts (and Sherlock can add impressive iPlayer stats to that as well) and both of those do incredibly well in the overnights. (Also what was Call The Midwife doing in timeshift? I honestly don't remember)

I'm also curious as to where all the share points fans are when it comes to Doctor Who. Nobody wants to talk about the fact that last years series opener had a 37% share but this year it 'only' managed 29%? Aren't 8 point drops in share supposed to be signs of a terminal decline or something?


Its the BBC's flagship drama shouldn't its ratings be the thing making it bombproof and not merchandise or international sales?

Someone should tell them this is the BBC. Overnights don't matter. I'm sure they'll be a swarm of Doctor Who fans all leaping to the shows defence any second now...

Edit:- Oops - wrong thread!

It's worth pointing out, however, that shows like Waterloo Road tend not to increase a colossal amount in final figures, or on iPlayer. Doctor Who does – far more than nearly every other show on television – so it's not surprising that people point that fact out!

And just for your benefit: "I will be intrigued to see how Waterloo Road (and New Tricks and every other show for that matter) does on iPlayer and on timeshift!"

There! Said it!

Trickytree can you show Downton Abbey's timeshifted viewing for their Christmas Day episode last year please?

@AlexIR:

The reason DW gets the attention it does wrt timeshifting is because it has "led the field" in this regard. As trickytree has posted above, only 50-55% of the total viewing for a DW episode was "live", 20% watched later that day, the remaining 25-30% watched later that week. Only DA has come close to that sort of performance in raw numbers, but not in %age terms.

K

Ah, my mistake. Thanks for that!

But of course the counter point to all of this is that nothing hits the kind of highs as Doctor Who does in regards to timeshifts and catch-up viewing. That may very well be true but it doesn't matter. That fewer people are watching via this method doesn't suddenly make that method irrelevant. So either you accept that judging Doctor Who via its overnights its perfectly fair and reasonable or every time someone criticises a BBC show for being low in the overnights you sing the same song about overnights being meaningless and that officials and catch-up figures are what really matter. In fact maybe we should start a campaign to just stop reporting BBC overnights altogether. After all they're meaningless. We should just wait for the officials and report those instead because that's where the valuable information is. Any analysis from overnights is unfair and working from incomplete data after all.

You're percentage declines are a bit wrong there - I think you've plugged the decline into the wrong number. The correct overall declines are:

The X Factor: Down 15.8%
Xtra Factor: Down 32.2%

Worth noting that quite a bit of Xtra Factor's decline is because of one of the most monumentally stupid pieces of scheduling of the year, as it now starts 15 minutes after the main show ends, with some Hot Desk filler running for the 15 minutes inbetween. No idea why they're doing that, perhaps to boost Red or Black, but it clearly isn't working for anyone and should be changed.

The main show's decline is concerning but at least it doesn't seem to be losing any more viewers than it already has (I notice yesterday's repeat was up a bit on last week's).

Downton Abbey Christmas Day Episode

If the actual figures were also down then yes, but they weren't. You have to look at the numbers + share in context.

Last year's opener got 6.5m at 6pm
This year's opener got 6.4m at 7:20pm

I quick assessment tells me that there are far more people watching tv at the later time so the share is bound to be down. The actual bums on seats remain consistent.

In your opinion! So you think everyone should be interested in watching a far fetched science fiction/fantasy series? Er - no thanks. (BTW I do watch other high quality dramas - even on the BBC).




As soon as they started tinkering and eventually making wholesale changes in the judging panel the rot set in! Why mend something that ain't broken? They need to get back to Cowell and Walsh on the panel from the start, with 2 credible and interesting females inbetween.


ITV3 are doing rather well at the moment, but I agree the future cannot depend on IAC etc..! They need to start bringing back other ITV shows from the vaults an/or start negotiating with owners of the rights if they don't have them.


[quote=TheIllusionist;60868898]Absolutely. I despair when I see X Factor highest rated programme. British TV is simply dire atm.



All our opinions I suppose - but I disagree. Saturday night on Freeview had:-

BBC1 - DR. WHO/LOTTERY/CASUALTY.
BBC2 - BBC PROMS.
BBC3 - TOP GEAR/LIVE AT THE APOLLO.
BBC4 - AFRICA'S BEASTS/ENGLAND'S EARLY QUEENS/INSPECTOR MONTALBANO.
ITV1 - RED OR BLACK/ X FACTOR.
ITV2 - FILM:KINDERGARTEN COP/XTRA FACTOR.
ITV3 - MARPLE/POIROT.
ITV4 - CYCLING/FILM: CASINO ROYALE.
CH. 4 - PARALYMPICS.
E4 - RULES OF ENGAGEMENT/SUBURGATORY/FILM: UNDER SIEGE.
4SEVEN - RESTORATION MAN/LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION/8 OUT OF 10 CATS.
MORE4 - SUPERSIZE V SUPERSKINNY/FAT BODIES.
FILM4 - PLANET OF THE APES/IDIOCRACY.
CH.5 - NCIS/CSI/BIG BROTHER.
5USA - FILM: RIO BRAVO/FILM: PERFECT STRANGER.
5* - FRONTLINE POLICE/TERMINATOR.
YESTERDAY - ANTIQUES ROADSHOW/LAST OF THE SUMMER WINE.
REALLY - MATERNITY WARD.
DAVE - MAN V FOOD/FILM: XXX2.
FOOD NETWORK - ACE OF CAKES.
QUEST - STORM CHASERS/SERIAL KILLERS.

Not bad IMO - something there for just about everyone.

Yep, for the commercial channels, overnights (esp "live" numbers) matter more than officials and for BBC shows, it's the other way round. If a "prime slot" show on ITV was getting, say, under 3m "live" but 6m "official", it probably wouldn't get recommissioned, whereas on BBC1 it probably would...

K

That seems fair, yes.

We should ofc remember that DW did jump into timeshifting with the opening Matt Smith episode which did seem low in the overnights at the time (low for an opener and defoes low for a new Doctor). If it was gradual, fair enough but DW set a record for timeshifting which was only then beaten by Downton which did have factors affecting the overnights.

We don't really know why DW does it, but it does. It isn't however like X Factor's massive drop, and as pointed out - why isn't X Factor gaining in timeshift? People timeshifting are watching for the same reasons people watching live are - They want to watch that programme.

Simply put - Doctor Who can only be looked at from a wider angle, there will be highs and lows worth discussing. But across all the ratings. Any other show which does similar will be treated the same.

Meanwhile Parade's End is still a strong figure but is in line with other BBC Two drama declines. It did timeshift well but I'd expect that to fall as well; but expectations can be wrong. Still, disappointing if a strong rating in itself.

Good - we are agreed. It isn't.



OK. The final official figure for Accused published today on the BARB website shows that it got 5.47 million viewers - and that is a good total, and better than its overnights displayed. Satisfied? Can we now make the same point about Doctor Who too?



It only doesn't matter if you are trying to sustain your (misplaced) argument that Doctor Who is losing viewers. In fact, on final official ratings, every season of Doctor Who since 2005 has averaged 7.75m, plus or minus 0.25m. That is extraordinary consistency.

More of those viewers than before are watching on catch-up, that is true, but they are still watching. Doctor Who viewers are more likely to be using catch-up than those of other programmes for the reasons I have cited - that far more of them than is typical for a BBC drama are in Sky homes, have children, are male and/or are technologically savvy. That - and not your theory that viewers are getting less enchanted with the programme - is why the timeshifts are so large.


That may be your point but it is wrong - for the reasons stated umpteen times. The overnight was up on the autumn season start last year. The most extraordinary thing about Doctor Who's official ratings is how they so rarely deviate from a very narrow range. On average it still gets almost exactly the same number of viewers it did in 2005. Very few other programmes can say that.



Good. Another point of agreement!



Not when the total number of viewers on the overnights is effectively unchanged (if you are comparing to the spring 2011 opener) or marginally up (if you are comparing to the autumn 2011 opener). The share is down because, for the first time since Doctor Who returned in 2005, it has been up against not one but two commercial channels making an effort - specifically, C4 showing the Paralympics rather than the seven millionth repeat of Come Dine with Me.

Finally, after accusing me of sidestepping your central argument, you promptly sidestepped mine. Doctor Who gets far more viewers than almost any other BBC programme (and certainly compared to any other drama on British television) in key groups which the Corporation finds very difficult to reach with the rest of its programming - children, teenagers, 18-35 year olds, Sky households, ethnic minorities and (for drama) males.

For that reason even with "just" six million viewers it would be more valuable to the BBC than the ten million viewers secured by Call the Midwife, most of whom are in demographics which watch lots of other BBC programmes too.

If you are looking for a reason why Doctor Who should be held to a different standard than simply "did it match the most excitable predictions for its overnights of those posting here", there you are - that's it.

That's great. Thank you.

Fascinating seeing how the numbers creep up. Most viewing is in the first 1-3 days generally speaking and corresponds with a TV chart about timeshifted viewing that Andy Parish has.