Samuel will you please answer this question. Why do you hate ITV so much? It comes across as weird, sad and demented. Sorry but it does. It causes petty arguments and hey I may be a hypocrite by saying this (I am) but why are you obsessive?
The Ratings Thread (Part 61)
161 of 536
Originally Posted by guestofseth:
“Oh please, no you don't. If you wanted a strong BBC you'd care about quality not 13 episode series of Pound Shop Wars or having every big show air against one on ITV. You just care about denting ITV and you consider BBC to be in the best position to do that. Of all your posts I've never really got the impression you're a BBC fan, just massively anti-ITV.”
“Oh please, no you don't. If you wanted a strong BBC you'd care about quality not 13 episode series of Pound Shop Wars or having every big show air against one on ITV. You just care about denting ITV and you consider BBC to be in the best position to do that. Of all your posts I've never really got the impression you're a BBC fan, just massively anti-ITV.”
Im a massive BBC One fan. 75pct of my viewing is BBC One, 10pct BBC2 and the other 15pct the rest. I want BBC One to rate as well as possible to ensure that critics of the license fee have no argument to abolish it. If BBC1 rated poorly, the critics would say it's bad value for money, even if the quality is good. But if the BBC1 rates really well with average quality, the critics have no bone to stand on because the BBC can just defend themselves by saying they are very popular with viewers.
A few decades ago when people wanted to demolish the license fee, they used the argument that BBC One wasnt very popular [back then Itv used to batter BBC1]. However these days, the critics cant use that argument because BBC One is by far easiest the most popular channel on tv. And thats what I want BBC One to be - the most popular channel on tv with the highest rating tv shows. Quality shows in there for sure, but also mainstream shows inthere including Pound Shop Wars which has a place in the scheudles, though make no mistake about it, I know it's not a top quality shhow.
Popularity is more important than quality imo when it comes to BBC One. Quality is important, of course, but popualrity is the most important thing. For BBC2 and BBC4, the quality is the most important thing and niche stuff can air there.
Originally Posted by lewiep93:
“Samuel will you please answer this question. Why do you hate ITV so much? It comes across as weird, sad and demented. Sorry but it does. It causes petty arguments and hey I may be a hypocrite by saying this (I am) but why are you obsessive?”
“Samuel will you please answer this question. Why do you hate ITV so much? It comes across as weird, sad and demented. Sorry but it does. It causes petty arguments and hey I may be a hypocrite by saying this (I am) but why are you obsessive?”
This!
The whole thing is just too much and is derailing this thread once again.
Originally Posted by C14E:
“A show that gets less viewers is generally going to make less money.
There are loads of slots where the BBC don't have good programmes... it doesn't seem unreasonable that some of those should be in slots where itv do well.
I don't think there can be many complaints if Call The Midwife gets put against Dancing on Ice or Doctor Who gets put against X Factor. But pitching the biggest dramas or the biggest entertainment series against each other seems not to be in the public interest.
The BBC has a responsibility to the TV industry as a whole - not just to ensuring its own survival and high ratings. If itv (or Channel 4 or Channel 5) are spending £1m + on a high profile and high quality UK drama or format which gets international recognition, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the BBC shouldn't be trying to actively damage that. Over the years I think the BBC have often been able to find an audience for shows (not the test card) against big itv shows without showing their biggest hits head to head.
But by and large I don't think the BBC are as bad as Samuel would have them be, thankfully.
What's also interesting is how in the regular season in the US, the networks have matured to a point where they actually schedule in quite a complimentary fashion with the exception of 10pm (where traditionally only drama works). But from 8-10pm you'll generally have one network with comedy, one with reality, one with drama and then one which overlaps one of those genres. You rarely see 3 comedy blocks or 3 reality franchises all going head to head.”
“A show that gets less viewers is generally going to make less money.
There are loads of slots where the BBC don't have good programmes... it doesn't seem unreasonable that some of those should be in slots where itv do well.
I don't think there can be many complaints if Call The Midwife gets put against Dancing on Ice or Doctor Who gets put against X Factor. But pitching the biggest dramas or the biggest entertainment series against each other seems not to be in the public interest.
The BBC has a responsibility to the TV industry as a whole - not just to ensuring its own survival and high ratings. If itv (or Channel 4 or Channel 5) are spending £1m + on a high profile and high quality UK drama or format which gets international recognition, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the BBC shouldn't be trying to actively damage that. Over the years I think the BBC have often been able to find an audience for shows (not the test card) against big itv shows without showing their biggest hits head to head.
But by and large I don't think the BBC are as bad as Samuel would have them be, thankfully.
What's also interesting is how in the regular season in the US, the networks have matured to a point where they actually schedule in quite a complimentary fashion with the exception of 10pm (where traditionally only drama works). But from 8-10pm you'll generally have one network with comedy, one with reality, one with drama and then one which overlaps one of those genres. You rarely see 3 comedy blocks or 3 reality franchises all going head to head.”
Genuinly flabergasted that anyone can think like that. So the BBC have a responsibility to the TV industry as a whole but ITV do not because their commercial?
Originally Posted by Roscoe Barnes:
“This!
The whole thing is just too much and is derailing this thread once again.”
“This!
The whole thing is just too much and is derailing this thread once again.”
You know what Im saying is true though Roscoe. BBC One are very ratings-focussed and want to maximise share. That invovles airing strong rating shows against some of Itv's big hitters to win back share in traditionally tough slots. Do you disagree with that statement?
Originally Posted by NeilVW:
“645k (3.2%) for The X Factor: Cheryl Looks Back on ITV2 from 20:00, including +1. A little higher than the Cowell one on Monday.
Source: ITV Media”
“645k (3.2%) for The X Factor: Cheryl Looks Back on ITV2 from 20:00, including +1. A little higher than the Cowell one on Monday.
Source: ITV Media”
It would be amusing if the Louis Walsh one tonight beats them both.
Originally Posted by johnnymc:
“Danny Cohen revealed in his interview at the television festival in Edinburgh, that he had no plans to move "Top Gear" to BBC one. It had been subject to discussion over the years but he doesn't feel its the right move. Its nothing to do with the presenters, if he says its moving it moves. The show isnt going to change channels.”
“Danny Cohen revealed in his interview at the television festival in Edinburgh, that he had no plans to move "Top Gear" to BBC one. It had been subject to discussion over the years but he doesn't feel its the right move. Its nothing to do with the presenters, if he says its moving it moves. The show isnt going to change channels.”
It was decided long ago that Top Gear wasn't moving, way before Cohen was in charge. At the time it was widely believed to be the case that the team didn't want to move the show and so it stayed. The time has passed now anyway, the time to move was 7 years ago when it was huge post Hammond's crash.
In any event, Cohen lacks the clout to fire Clarkson, he's making too much money for Worldwide so it becomes a decision that goes over his head.
Originally Posted by yorkie100:
“Genuinly flabergasted that anyone can think like that. So the BBC have a responsibility to the TV industry as a whole but ITV do not because their commercial?”
“Genuinly flabergasted that anyone can think like that. So the BBC have a responsibility to the TV industry as a whole but ITV do not because their commercial?”
The BBC has a responsibility to the Licence Fee payer to provide the best programming possible in each slot. They're not there to protect ITV's bottom-line.
Originally Posted by C14E:
“It would be amusing if the Louis Walsh one tonight beats them both.
It was decided long ago that Top Gear wasn't moving, way before Cohen was in charge. At the time it was widely believed to be the case that the team didn't want to move the show and so it stayed. The time has passed now anyway, the time to move was 7 years ago when it was huge post Hammond's crash.
In any event, Cohen lacks the clout to fire Clarkson, he's making too much money for Worldwide so it becomes a decision that goes over his head.”
“It would be amusing if the Louis Walsh one tonight beats them both.
It was decided long ago that Top Gear wasn't moving, way before Cohen was in charge. At the time it was widely believed to be the case that the team didn't want to move the show and so it stayed. The time has passed now anyway, the time to move was 7 years ago when it was huge post Hammond's crash.
In any event, Cohen lacks the clout to fire Clarkson, he's making too much money for Worldwide so it becomes a decision that goes over his head.”
Crazy! That Worldwide cash is more important. He is said to be too close to David Cameron for Cohen to sack him also. I think that Cohen mentions that there have been discussions on the move for a long time but I doubt the presenters could do much if they had wanted to move it over to BBC one, other than leave.
Originally Posted by yorkie100:
“Genuinly flabergasted that anyone can think like that. So the BBC have a responsibility to the TV industry as a whole but ITV do not because their commercial?”
“Genuinly flabergasted that anyone can think like that. So the BBC have a responsibility to the TV industry as a whole but ITV do not because their commercial?”
I'm continually flabergasted at the way people on here think the BBC exists solely to serve and sustain the BBC with the highest ratings possible rather than provide a public service.
It's continually picked up on (and acknowledged by the BBC) that they have a responsibility to encourage innovation and creativity in the industry as a whole, support UK producers and so on.
It's a TV Licence, not a BBC licence.
Originally Posted by pdwill:
“The BBC has a responsibility to the Licence Fee payer to provide the best programming possible in each slot. They're not there to protect ITV's bottom-line.”
“The BBC has a responsibility to the Licence Fee payer to provide the best programming possible in each slot. They're not there to protect ITV's bottom-line.”
Neither are they there to damage it.
Originally Posted by Agent F:
“Neither are they there to damage it.”
“Neither are they there to damage it.”
I'm not suggesting that they do.
ITV's bottom-line should be largely irrelevant.
It's not a duopoly anymore.
Is this obsession with one FM verging on obsessional and tantamount to bullying?
Just ignore the poster as he does state 'some' good facts and figures.
Before I get lynched - just expressing an opinion as a casual visitor to this thread.
Just ignore the poster as he does state 'some' good facts and figures.
Before I get lynched - just expressing an opinion as a casual visitor to this thread.
Someone mentioned to my post about XF rights cost going up therefore ratings needing to go up, that Big Bang Theory actors are being paid 3 times more than before but CBS wouldnt expect ratings to go up by 3 times. Of course not. But it's a completely different situation. BBT makes CBS a shedload of money through syndication. So even though the actors wages have gone up significantly, with the way the syndication deals are going, the show will continue to be extremely profitable if not more profitable in the future if syndication rights cost goes up. Obviously for XF however, the repeat value is not anywhere near as strong as Big Bang Theory's. The overnight figure is what counts predominantly. In terms of repeats, XF does fine but not as well as it used to a few years ago and it's not like syndication where itv gets a lot of money for it.
It is simple arithmetic. If you spend £20-50million more on the rights of a particular tv show which is predominantly making revenue based on overnight figures, then to make the same kind of profit as you used to, the viewing figures need to be higher than before. I'm sorry but it doesnt take Sherlock to work that one out!
It is simple arithmetic. If you spend £20-50million more on the rights of a particular tv show which is predominantly making revenue based on overnight figures, then to make the same kind of profit as you used to, the viewing figures need to be higher than before. I'm sorry but it doesnt take Sherlock to work that one out!
Originally Posted by Roscoe Barnes:
“This!
The whole thing is just too much and is derailing this thread once again.”
“This!
The whole thing is just too much and is derailing this thread once again.”
I find all this "Oh Samuel, you're derailing the thread" stuff hilarious. He isn't derailing the thread at all! He's passionate about what he feels (and he does make some bonkers statements sometimes and does tend to get carried away on occasion) and you guys just get wound up by him because he openly, honestly, and passionately supports BBC1. So what? Do trainspotters annoy you all too? Do you find people with differing opinions and ideals annoying everywhere you go? Samuel has a passion for something you guys don't. That is all. He isn't robbing banks or mugging old ladies. If you don't like what he posts, don't read it! Believe me, I ignore loads of his posts. But I respond to the ones I feel warrant a response. At the end of the day, this is a discussion thread. That doesn't mean we can only discuss what you guys don't find offensive or annoying!
Originally Posted by C14E:
“I'm continually flabergasted at the way people on here think the BBC exists solely to serve and sustain the BBC with the highest ratings possible rather than provide a public service.
It's continually picked up on (and acknowledged by the BBC) that they have a responsibility to encourage innovation and creativity in the industry as a whole, support UK producers and so on.
It's a TV Licence, not a BBC licence.”
“I'm continually flabergasted at the way people on here think the BBC exists solely to serve and sustain the BBC with the highest ratings possible rather than provide a public service.
It's continually picked up on (and acknowledged by the BBC) that they have a responsibility to encourage innovation and creativity in the industry as a whole, support UK producers and so on.
It's a TV Licence, not a BBC licence.”
Agreed. This thread in particular is full of people that actively want the BBC to act aggressively commercial. How utterly contradictory to its purpose.
Originally Posted by C14E:
“I'm continually flabergasted at the way people on here think the BBC exists solely to serve and sustain the BBC with the highest ratings possible rather than provide a public service.
It's continually picked up on (and acknowledged by the BBC) that they have a responsibility to encourage innovation and creativity in the industry as a whole, support UK producers and so on.
It's a TV Licence, not a BBC licence.”
“I'm continually flabergasted at the way people on here think the BBC exists solely to serve and sustain the BBC with the highest ratings possible rather than provide a public service.
It's continually picked up on (and acknowledged by the BBC) that they have a responsibility to encourage innovation and creativity in the industry as a whole, support UK producers and so on.
It's a TV Licence, not a BBC licence.”
Actually, BBC1's role is to primarily provide populist programming and within that to also supply quality PSB programmes. Samuel is quite correct that BBC1 (not the BBC in general) does need to attract decent audiences in order to justify the LF. If BBC1 only had a million viewers, then rightly so the Government would be looking at ways to make the BBC available to that small audience via subscription. Of course it has a duty to all UK citizens to provide programming that is part of its PSB remit, but it isn't accurate to conclude that BBC1 isn't all about ratings.
Originally Posted by yorkie100:
“Dont understand the hype about Bake Off tonight. One guy got ever so slightly annoyed and put his Baked Alaska disaster in the bin. It was hardly a major mental breakdown.
”
“Dont understand the hype about Bake Off tonight. One guy got ever so slightly annoyed and put his Baked Alaska disaster in the bin. It was hardly a major mental breakdown.
”
I love what Bake Off does to people though, It's sent the entire internet into Meltdown over meringue and Ice Cream- I've never seen anything quite like it, It could easily overshadow both XF and SCD and become the biggest show on TV. I can see 10-11 million overnights for the final, especially as the hype builds
Originally Posted by sw2963:
“Is this obsession with one FM verging on obsessional and tantamount to bullying?
Just ignore the poster as he does state 'some' good facts and figures.
Before I get lynched - just expressing an opinion as a casual visitor to this thread.”
“Is this obsession with one FM verging on obsessional and tantamount to bullying?
Just ignore the poster as he does state 'some' good facts and figures.
Before I get lynched - just expressing an opinion as a casual visitor to this thread.”
Samuel posts a lot and when he posts, nearly everything he says is deliberately inflammatory. It is inevitable that he dictates the tone of the thread, especially as he is ably assisted by number of supporters who back him up. Whether this is good or bad for the thread is another argument - it's certainly amusing at times, it creates debate and keeps the thread moving. I do smile every time I read a made up internal target or his latest excuses for Tumble. But he thrives on the reaction, it's what he is looking for. Nobody could reasonably believe some of the things he writes.
PS: As for those facts and figures, they tend to be made up, sometimes he's just lying and on more than one occasion he has misappropriated the research of others as his own (via mythical "inside sources").
Originally Posted by C14E:
“Samuel posts a lot and when he posts, nearly everything he says is deliberately inflammatory. It is inevitable that he dictates the tone of the thread, especially as he is ably assisted by number of supporters who back him up. Whether this is good or bad for the thread is another argument - it's certainly amusing at times, it creates debate and keeps the thread moving. I do smile every time I read a made up internal target or his latest excuses for Tumble. But he thrives on the reaction, it's what he is looking for. Nobody could reasonably believe some of the things he writes.
PS: As for those facts and figures, they tend to be made up, sometimes he's just lying and on more than one occasion he has misappropriated the research of others as his own (via mythical "inside sources").”
“Samuel posts a lot and when he posts, nearly everything he says is deliberately inflammatory. It is inevitable that he dictates the tone of the thread, especially as he is ably assisted by number of supporters who back him up. Whether this is good or bad for the thread is another argument - it's certainly amusing at times, it creates debate and keeps the thread moving. I do smile every time I read a made up internal target or his latest excuses for Tumble. But he thrives on the reaction, it's what he is looking for. Nobody could reasonably believe some of the things he writes.
PS: As for those facts and figures, they tend to be made up, sometimes he's just lying and on more than one occasion he has misappropriated the research of others as his own (via mythical "inside sources").”
I appreciate your measured response. Hey I know that 'maybe' the case (with re: facts and internal sources) at times to support the argument but I don't take anyone too seriously when they talk about what Doris is watching next door. As you say the flow of discussion isn't stagnant.
Originally Posted by C14E:
“A show that gets less viewers is generally going to make less money.”
“A show that gets less viewers is generally going to make less money.”
Will the extra hour of Coronation St limit the minutes of commercials ITV can air during X Factor and Whicher that night?
Am I right in thinking they sometimes air things like Surprise Surprise with some ad-free breaks in order to pack extra ads into X Factor and Abbey/Celeb?
Originally Posted by wizzywick:
“I find all this "Oh Samuel, you're derailing the thread" stuff hilarious. He isn't derailing the thread at all! He's passionate about what he feels (and he does make some bonkers statements sometimes and does tend to get carried away on occasion) and you guys just get wound up by him because he openly, honestly, and passionately supports BBC1. So what? Do trainspotters annoy you all too? Do you find people with differing opinions and ideals annoying everywhere you go? Samuel has a passion for something you guys don't. That is all. He isn't robbing banks or mugging old ladies. If you don't like what he posts, don't read it! Believe me, I ignore loads of his posts. But I respond to the ones I feel warrant a response. At the end of the day, this is a discussion thread. That doesn't mean we can only discuss what you guys don't find offensive or annoying!”
“I find all this "Oh Samuel, you're derailing the thread" stuff hilarious. He isn't derailing the thread at all! He's passionate about what he feels (and he does make some bonkers statements sometimes and does tend to get carried away on occasion) and you guys just get wound up by him because he openly, honestly, and passionately supports BBC1. So what? Do trainspotters annoy you all too? Do you find people with differing opinions and ideals annoying everywhere you go? Samuel has a passion for something you guys don't. That is all. He isn't robbing banks or mugging old ladies. If you don't like what he posts, don't read it! Believe me, I ignore loads of his posts. But I respond to the ones I feel warrant a response. At the end of the day, this is a discussion thread. That doesn't mean we can only discuss what you guys don't find offensive or annoying!”
Honestly, if the boost was on the other foot I really don't think you would be quite so supportive of him. Since you support the BBC it doesn't quite irritate you as much since he's talking about the channel you like. If you take his posts and swap ITV with BBC and rad again; tell me honestly that you wouldn't find his posts irritating?
Frankly I'm fed up of his silly chat of destroying ITV, its not constructive, its not debatable and its not smart - its just trolling.
Originally Posted by H of De Vil:
“Honestly, if the boost was on the other foot I really don't think you would be quite so supportive of him. Since you support the BBC it doesn't quite irritate you as much since he's talking about the channel you like. If you take his posts and swap ITV with BBC and rad again; tell me honestly that you wouldn't find his posts irritating?”
“Honestly, if the boost was on the other foot I really don't think you would be quite so supportive of him. Since you support the BBC it doesn't quite irritate you as much since he's talking about the channel you like. If you take his posts and swap ITV with BBC and rad again; tell me honestly that you wouldn't find his posts irritating?”
Im sorry that you feel that way H. The news that the BBC scheduled the SCD launch against XF was a big one today and I guess I got carried away.
Incidentally what are your thoughts about the Rising Star developments about it being stripped across one week in March next year?
Sensible decision R.e Rising Star. It was ultimately bound to flop anyway, especially against The Voice. If I were ITV I would put in on Summer 2015, as least then they might have something rating better at that time of year than rpt's.
The Voice doesn't need help collapsing, it will do that on its own.
So weekends for ITV next year look to be:
Saturday
7pm Name That Tune
8pm Take Me Out
9:20pm The Jonathon Ross Show
Sunday
The Chase/Celeb Squares
Stars In Their Eyes.
The Voice doesn't need help collapsing, it will do that on its own.
So weekends for ITV next year look to be:
Saturday
7pm Name That Tune
8pm Take Me Out
9:20pm The Jonathon Ross Show
Sunday
The Chase/Celeb Squares
Stars In Their Eyes.
Originally Posted by Pizzatheaction:
“Will the extra hour of Coronation St limit the minutes of commercials ITV can air during X Factor and Whicher that night?
Am I right in thinking they sometimes air things like Surprise Surprise with some ad-free breaks in order to pack extra ads into X Factor and Abbey/Celeb?”
“Will the extra hour of Coronation St limit the minutes of commercials ITV can air during X Factor and Whicher that night?
Am I right in thinking they sometimes air things like Surprise Surprise with some ad-free breaks in order to pack extra ads into X Factor and Abbey/Celeb?”
They're allowed 40 minutes between 6 and 11pm, and no more than 12 in a clock hour. If they use the maximum over three hours they have only 4 minutes left in the other two.
161 of 536
