I didnt say they were wrong, I said its not a fair comparison. AS the overnights indicate, series 3 was down more than the officials indicate, in actual reality. Fact is it has been losing viewers every series, that was my main point initially. It always launches well then loses viewers during the run rather than remaining stable.

A pretty dismal night for the big three entertainment shows in the US last night, with the Voice US final scoring a 3.3 which was down over a demo point from last years 4.4. DWTS was also down from last springs finale but only by 0.3 scoring a 2.4 last night.

While Fox' meltdown continues with American Idol scoring a 1.7 for its final competition ep, beaten by a REPEAT of The Voice and tied with a REPEAT of DWTS! New reality show I Wanna Marry Harry bombed with a debut 0.7 and restores my faith in humanity!

You must have SamuelW on ignore as well then - he's made at least 13 posts tonight with no purpose other than to slag off ITV. Before he turned up everyone commenting on Happy Valley's ratings was commenting on Happy Valley's rating - not how it's all doom and gloom for ITV because the person behind it isn't going to be as involved in one ITV series next year, and including many many inaccuracies about the situation too.

To be fair, he wasn't starting a +1 argument, merely pointing out an apparent error he had identified. As for Scott & Bailey itself...


Thanks Lewie. The argument is not quite to bed. SamuelW noted that not all of the series were fully networked across the UK, however it was series 2 (not series 1 and 2) that was not shown by STV. (Source: Overnights.tv Programme Search - STV showings, rest-of-UK showings)

Using rzt's consolidated drama charts for 2011, 2012 and 2013, we get the following:

S1 - May-July 2011 - 7.36m / 7.74m
* Sundays
* shown across the UK

S2 - Mar-May 2012 - 6.38m / 6.94m
* Mondays
* not shown by STV
* down -10% including +1 in unadjusted terms
* down -3% including +1 allowing for lack of STV showing in 2012

S3 - Apr-May 2013 - 6.38m / 6.90m
* Wednesdays
* shown across the UK
* down -1% including +1 in unadjusted terms
* down -8% including +1 allowing for lack of STV showing in 2012

So a -3% fall followed by a -8% fall in viewers after allowing for the Scotland thing.

One hit - BOOM!

Does several posters tonight have OCD regarding Samuel? That's all they seem to talk about!

Fox must be really hard up for hits if they decided to give American Idol another series. Atrocious ratings! Also I still say ABC will eye Rising Star as a potential Dancing With The Stars replacement. Thank God the Harry show died a death for the good of television.

I think some posters are getting OCD with regard to Andy23 as well. If it carries on like this we are going to need a psychiatrist on here.

Didn't American Idol used to be the number one show on TV? For several years in a row?

It ran 20:03-20:58 according to Attentional, so DS's 7.98m (36.6%) was tape-checked from 20:05. ITV Media gives a full-slot figure of 7.86m (36%), from which we can deduce that the 20:00-20:05 period rated 6.74m.

Quite. It'd be a field day!

I agree with Andy actually; the whole 'Boredchurch' stuff was really irritating at the time because it really did just stink of anti-ITV hatred; and it's true that if it were airing on the other channel, those haters would have been singing a different tune, and none of the "ITVistas" would try and piss on it. Just my opinion though, and I think people like Andy balance out the thread and always make good points, if a bit repetitive (fighting fire with fire!)

BTW thanks for the Happy Valley rundown earlier buddy.

From observing, in a purely pshchiatric way, the ones who complain about Samuel are doing exactly the same thing as he is, only Samuel actually realises he has a bias, the others don't. I'll write a prescription.

Quite.

Good to see his inaccurate ratings were picked up on as well. normally he hopes people won't ask questions, and will take them as gospel, which is why he always starts those ratings led threads in other parts of the forum.

I don't have any news on that front, sorry. It would be interesting to know, in particular how that extra half an hour is doing and how that compares to Home & Away at 1:15.

I'm also a regular Wright Stuff viewer and don't understand the dislike for it on here. I can understand Matthew not being everyone's cup of tea, but it's just a discussion show and not everyone wants to watch Jeremy Kyle or endless property/antiques programmes. They feature a good mixture of topics each day and the paper review is second to none.

In my opinion, Andy23 is to ITV what Samuel is to BBC1. You will never, ever, see warranted praise for the BBC from Andy.

I don't claim any special knowledge on this subject - although I would say that it very much depends on what kind of football, what kind of drama and what kind of factual. Someone like mlt11 might know the cost per match or per hour of Champions' League.

Also, it's been remarked on here before that the advertising revenue which ITV will lose by attracting far fewer young males in particular will mean that any replacement programming for the football will inevitably have to have a considerably lower budget, unless they can devise some equally lucrative alternatives (which seems unlikely).

If even FOX viewers won't watch it it must be crap. I think DWTS has recovered a bit this series - cutting it to one night has probably benefitted it in the short term at least, and I'm sure if things got worse it would be cut to one series a year before being axed completely.

Can't believe how far Idol has fallen - I think it's longevity means it probably warrants the next season even if it doesn't based on this years, but they really should announce it as the final season.


I've never seen Andy slag off the BBC for the sake of slagging off the BBC.

I sort of assumed that would be the case but without the facts could not state it as fact. The best ITV could do would be a reshuffle and introduce some drama on Tuesday but it would probably leave a gap somewhere else in the schedule.

Will it have interested enough people to tune in on Thursday? Hopefully.

I think had the second half of Tuesday's EastEnders gone out on Thursday as originally planned momentum would have been lost. All of the funeral revelations happened on Tuesday where more people were watching. Also the Friday episode is now on Thursday, and after that ending with Mick, Stan & Shirley it could get a big curiosity boost.

With respect wizzy, your protective nature with regards to Samuel has been voiced before and so it comes as no surprise you think he is practically blameless just because (in your eyes) he is aware of his bias (I see no proof of this in his writing) while others aren't aware of their biases - it could mean you excuse him for things you don't excuse others for, and often those others are only trying to level the playing field out? Just an observation, and I might add no insult to you at all!

I would say only about 3 posters have an actual hardcore agenda agenda on this thread. They are Robbie, Samuel (BBC) and GeorgeS (ITV). Beneath that we have more objective posters who may have allegiances to certain shows but not channels; they are often accused when defending something being kicked and stamped on, as being fanboiz - when actually they're just trying to be positive. I'm pretty sure Andy23 is more impartial/objective but perhaps leans toward ITV, and will 'play the game' or as I said earlier 'fight fire with fire' when it comes to the... well.. I'm going to call it onslaught of posts we sometimes get from people like Samuel. Tonight's been pretty relentless.

The volume of anti-ITV posts does outweigh (vastly) the number of anti-BBC postings, and I think even those with 'ITV leanings' tend not to dwell / point out / piss on BBC failures or mistakes or series declines as much as those with 'BBC leanings' like to do, actively, against ITV shows. Like the 'Boredchurch' thing - hilarious now after its ratings, critical, international success - but at the time so incensing. I rather think if Emmerdale/Corrie had slumped as bad as EastEnders did from 2007-2013, for as long, there would have been a far higher volume of posts. I think some people think the BBC's output is "a hit until proven a flop" whereas ITV's is "a flop unless it somehow is a hit" sometimes.

Comparing Andy to Samuel isn't really fair. Samuel goes out of his way to find (and source) negative things about ITV, some of them quite petty IMO. I think he does this because it winds people up and because - unless he is employed to do work like this - he has an unhealthy dislike for ITV. I just can't understand why. Remember this is the guy who deliberately writes Itv or itv and EmFarm and Coro instead of full names whilst perfectly spelling everything BBC related. It's what I like to call "inteli-trolling".

My days of spatting with Samuel are over however; I find it easier to sit back and laugh now and some of his posts are remarkably insightful - it's a shame he just can't be more objective. Many posters here go on the DEFENSIVE, but in my opinion Samuel goes on the OFFENSIVE on a daily basis. There's a difference between going on the defensive and going on the offensive, yet the defensive ones often lose their cool which Samuel doesn't do, meaning people criticise the defenders; yet Samuel's approach is more wind-up merchant-like and the unfortunate thing is his rising intelligence (which has been shown in insightful but rare analysis posts) means he is getting better at baiting the defenders of objectivity and fairness. If that makes any sense. I'm not sure it does as I'm quite sleepy.

Well that's my psychological assessment - I prescribe 10mg of Valium to each thread member.


—

All that said, it's best to just take this thread in your stride. I learned that a while ago after a few meltdowns at failing to be understood / accused of being some biased loony. You just gotta take it on the chin when you're cornered, involve the mods if lines are crossed, but overall just take the banter!

What does that mean though? When he slags off the BBC he has some altruistic reason for doing it as opposed to just doing it because someone else has slagged off ITV?

But only one is the most vocal and does mislead with facts. Samuel gathers negative points about ITV as party leaders gather for votes in elections.

Wow! That is a thorough psychological report. I'm well impressed. James, you're not actually a real psychiatrist are you?

I do stick up for Samuel, but not because I think he's blameless. Sometimes he infuriates the arse off me, sometimes his posts are so embarrassing it makes me cringe! But if you guys would take a little time just to read back your posts, it is really worrying that there are five posters constantly and repeatedly "ripping him to shreds" when in reality they should just ignore him and concentrate on discussing ratings and TV programmes with other posters who don't annoy them. Mostly I'll just let Samuel, and anyone else, get on with it. But as this evening a whole bunch of posts are just slagging Samuel off, it seemed pertinent to mention it.

Have I just read an essay Good post, I very much agree

Sorry but thats just not enough - I have 2 more episodes of Happy Valley to get through - I need more !!!!