|
||||||||
The Ratings Thread (Part 45) |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Unregistered
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,282
|
Quote:
Lewis part 1 was 8.2m only with +1 - without it was 7.75m so the drop wasn't much at all.
I've wanted to post this a few times but didn't want to annoy anybody, I think all those who provide us with the ratings do an excellent job but the +1 arguments are tiresome, and the lack of ratings without +1 (the ones I feel should be used for comparisons, the main reason for this thread) has caused a lot more of them.
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,581
|
Superb for The Chase averaging over 4m. Do you think it'll manage that figure regularly from now on or go back to around 3m once the snow has gone?
Also, quite a while since I've seen one of the soaps over 10m in the overnights. When was the last time Corrie managed 10m+ in the overnights? |
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,154
|
Quote:
That's a shame for ITV as Laura Mackie and Sally Haynes have been excellent drama commissioners for the channel. Who will get the job at ITV? Could they be looking at the BBC's Ben Stephenson?
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,294
|
Quote:
Another reason why both figures should be made clear on here, to avoid this confusion, for the past few weeks officials (and a lot of overnights as well) posted on here have just included +1, with only @TVRatingsUK providing consolidated figures without +1. I always thought there was an unwritten rule that both figures would be posted so that all posters are happy and can compare ratings how they like. I think that's why there's been so many +1 arguments lately, and in some cases it seems it's being done deliberately to cause arguments.
I've wanted to post this a few times but didn't want to annoy anybody, I think all those who provide us with the ratings do an excellent job but the +1 arguments are tiresome, and the lack of ratings without +1 (the ones I feel should be used for comparisons, the main reason for this thread) has caused a lot more of them. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 50,506
|
Quote:
Another reason why both figures should be made clear on here, to avoid this confusion, for the past few weeks officials (and a lot of overnights as well) posted on here have just included +1, with only @TVRatingsUK providing consolidated figures without +1. I always thought there was an unwritten rule that both figures would be posted so that all posters are happy and can compare ratings how they like. I think that's why there's been so many +1 arguments lately, and in some cases it seems it's being done deliberately to cause arguments.
I've wanted to post this a few times but didn't want to annoy anybody, I think all those who provide us with the ratings do an excellent job but the +1 arguments are tiresome, and the lack of ratings without +1 (the ones I feel should be used for comparisons, the main reason for this thread) has caused a lot more of them. ![]() If anyone else wishes to post the exc. +1 figures as well, then good luck to them. But I will stick to my way of doing it because it takes long enough to do as it is. Sorry. |
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 8,397
|
Quote:
Sorry - your memory is playing tricks on you. Mackie and Haynes were at ITV when The Palace, Rock Rivals, Whistleblowers, Harley Street and many other duds were commissioned.
They've revived the channel's drama fortunes in part since then but at the expense of any originality - their hits are either carbon copies of other shows or linked to existing franchises. It's been enough to spin a PR line about 'a drama rennaissance' - but that's not strictly true ... and for every hit there have been many more flops. They certainly haven't got the channel back to where it used to be, churning out one drama smash after another and flattening the opposition. And yes, I know viewing habits have changed and there are more channels than there used to be - but a major hit is still a major hit, and ITV has nothing like as many in drama as it used to have. |
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Cymru
Posts: 12,702
|
Quote:
Another reason why both figures should be made clear on here, to avoid this confusion, for the past few weeks officials (and a lot of overnights as well) posted on here have just included +1, with only @TVRatingsUK providing consolidated figures without +1. I always thought there was an unwritten rule that both figures would be posted so that all posters are happy and can compare ratings how they like. I think that's why there's been so many +1 arguments lately, and in some cases it seems it's being done deliberately to cause arguments.
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 17,541
|
Just subscribing to the new thread.
Judging by yesterday's ratings, Jeremy Kyle has some new fans who are postmen or teachers.
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 20,370
|
Quote:
The broadcaster is keen to build on the 350,000 Sky homes that watched the Olympic Games in 3D, and all 4.5m Sky subscribers who have an HD set top box are theoretically able to view 3D content.
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/b...050910.article350,000 homes 22 months after launch. Not far behind Sky HD, which reached 358,000 after 17 months. What did Mr Stink get according to BARB? 12,000 and that included the likes of RobbieSykes123 and other non-Sky viewers!! |
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: North East
Posts: 12,254
|
JK show is annoying, But at least we have a new thread at last
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 17,541
|
Happy Birthday, Brekkie!
![]() Just spotted your name on the index page. |
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 214
|
18:30 Hollyoaks: 1.45m (6.1%)
Wow .. high for Hollyoaks on Ch 4 .. from memory Friday's E4 was over 0.8m .. Hollyoaks with +1 and omnibus knocking on for 3 million? |
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 27,888
|
Quote:
It's only really you who has a major issue with +1 - and if someone like Dancc takes the effort to post the ratings and opts not to split them you are still free to post the split down version.
And looking ahead a week but a bit of a wildcard at 9pm next Monday with BBC3 airing Prince Harry in Afghanistan. |
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: nr Peterborough, England
Posts: 48,127
|
yes, I would put a vote down, for ratings both with and without +1, simply so we get a full picture.
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NW London
Posts: 19,904
|
Quote:
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/b...050910.article
350,000 homes 22 months after launch. Not far behind Sky HD, which reached 358,000 after 17 months. What did Mr Stink get according to BARB? 12,000 and that included the likes of RobbieSykes123 and other non-Sky viewers!! K |
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 27,888
|
Quote:
Why on earth does it cause you such a problem. We're all bright enough here to mentally adjust the figures to factor in whether +1 is or is not excluded - and figures with and without +1 are freely available online for anyone who wants them.
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 27,888
|
Quote:
I can't speak for everybody but from my POV it would take too long to do the +1 figures separately. And for me the +1 audiences are getting too big to ignore now, so posting just the exc. +1 figures wouldn't be credible (IMO).
If anyone else wishes to post the exc. +1 figures as well, then good luck to them. But I will stick to my way of doing it because it takes long enough to do as it is. Sorry. I disagree about +1 ratings being "too big" though. Sometimes they are as little as 200K, and occasionally just over a million. So what I will do is take a million off your figures and use that as the official overnight. |
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,581
|
CBeebies peaked with 647k (3.4%) at 17:35. CBBC peaked with 355k (2.7%) at 16:15.
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,424
|
Quote:
18:30 Hollyoaks: 1.45m (6.1%)
Wow .. high for Hollyoaks on Ch 4 .. from memory Friday's E4 was over 0.8m .. Hollyoaks with +1 and omnibus knocking on for 3 million? |
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 50,506
|
Quote:
At least you posted a response Dancc. That in itself is appreciated.
I disagree about +1 ratings being "too big" though. Sometimes they are as little as 200K, and occasionally just over a million. So what I will do is take a million off your figures and use that as the official overnight. ![]() Don't forget the likes of DS and Broadcast provide a short daily summary of the main ratings of the night including the commercial TV figures excluding +1. You can always use my roundups in conjunction with those ones for any primetime BBC1/ITV comparisons. |
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,154
|
Surprised that given its better performances EastEnders did not receive a slight snow boost to its figures like Coronation Street or the One show. Perhaps its catch up is preferable to viewers now
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,899
|
Quote:
Surprised that given its better performances EastEnders did not receive a slight snow boost to its figures like Coronation Street or the One show. Perhaps its catch up is preferable to viewers now
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 12,049
|
That +1 figures are getting too big to ignore is part of the problem. ITV's figures are being boosted by maybe 5% or more through aggregation and it is distorting the true picture in the battle with BBC1. The playing field is getting ever more unlevel.
I don't understand why it is easier to post aggregate figures than separate because you have to go to the trouble of adding them up if you post "ITV Total" figures. |
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 50,506
|
Quote:
That +1 figures are getting too big to ignore is part of the problem. ITV's figures are being boosted by maybe 5% or more through aggregation and it is distorting the true picture in the battle with BBC1. The playing field is getting ever more unlevel.
I don't understand why it is easier to post aggregate figures than separate because you have to go to the trouble of adding them up if you post "ITV Total" figures. I'm not the only person who does the roundups though and others may choose to do it in a different more crowd-pleasing way. But spending an hour plus typing out the numbers doesn't sound very appealing to me so I'll stick to my method on the days I'm here to do it. Follow @TVRatingsUK on Twitter for headline figures each morning, with & without +1. |
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 29,512
|
I'd be grateful for the ratings, seeing as anyone can access them - which has been the case since mid November.
But never mind, let's continue this tedious +1 argument which seemingly never will go away, instead of talking about the plethora of figures we have in front of us. |
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:20.






