What are the ratings like for the opening 2 episodes of Dragons' Den?
The Ratings Thread (Part 61)
41 of 536
Originally Posted by johnnymc:
“There were as many failures as there is today. Your memory just chooses to select the best. Some of the titles were 30 years ago that you are talking about.”
“There were as many failures as there is today. Your memory just chooses to select the best. Some of the titles were 30 years ago that you are talking about.”
But clearly nowhere near as many hits.
Originally Posted by Glenn A:
“It was achieving 18 million viewers at its height in 1986.”
“It was achieving 18 million viewers at its height in 1986.”
It did better in 1988 with 19-21m viewers.
Originally Posted by allthingsuk:
“ Didn't Shane Richie's Caught in the Act get 12 million?”
“ Didn't Shane Richie's Caught in the Act get 12 million?”
In week one, yes.
Originally Posted by D.M.N.:
“Tumble premièred with an average audience of 3.16m (20.7%).”
“Tumble premièred with an average audience of 3.16m (20.7%).”
Tumble by name Tumble by nature.
Originally Posted by Chris1964:
“Bread was a great watch imo when it was fresh, its a classic example of a comedy that was done to death -it became like a soap with too many episodes(74 over 7 series -the first two UK regulation 6 but series 3/4/5 each had 13) and the laughs couldn't be sustained. It actually hit 20.95 million at its peak but had drifted down to 10 million and less 3 years later, by which time it had become a bit of national joke for all the wrong reasons.”
“Bread was a great watch imo when it was fresh, its a classic example of a comedy that was done to death -it became like a soap with too many episodes(74 over 7 series -the first two UK regulation 6 but series 3/4/5 each had 13) and the laughs couldn't be sustained. It actually hit 20.95 million at its peak but had drifted down to 10 million and less 3 years later, by which time it had become a bit of national joke for all the wrong reasons.”
It was quite good for the first three series, but when they started changing the actors and Carla Lane made it into a Green Party broadcast it went really poor.
She is a tart! ( popular catchphrase, not a reference to Ms Lane).
Originally Posted by Glenn A:
“In the days of Bill Cotton light entertainment was the cornerstone of BBC 1's Saturday schedule and they were extremely good at it. I can recall shows like The Generation Game and The Two Ronnies pulling in 19 million viewers and wiping out ITV. Now, apart from SCD, they seem to be floundering. Tumble is OK, but certainly isn't on a par with the much loved BBC One greats of the past and will probably go after one series.”
“In the days of Bill Cotton light entertainment was the cornerstone of BBC 1's Saturday schedule and they were extremely good at it. I can recall shows like The Generation Game and The Two Ronnies pulling in 19 million viewers and wiping out ITV. Now, apart from SCD, they seem to be floundering. Tumble is OK, but certainly isn't on a par with the much loved BBC One greats of the past and will probably go after one series.”
The problem though is that there just aren't any Forsyths/Coopers/Dawsons/Morcambes/Corbetts/Barkers/Baxters and more plus a whole host of second tier variety acts around anymore. All the above were effectively compelled to make television for the pre-watershed market(and no doubt were happy to do so) and it created a golden age of comedies and LE which millions still look back with fondness(accepting that there were duff shows too). Look to today and what do we have- a raft of stand up comedians most of whom are awkward with the idea of appearing before 9.00, a host of (perhaps being unkind here) bland presenters who don't go beyond a bit of smalltalk and a link-and Ant and Dec who have cornered the market as the only family "act" who start to approach the kind of reputation as the big names of yesteryear.
So surely there should be some sort of attempt to create presenting stars/pre watershed acts/double acts. Its interesting that BGT (correct me I'm wrong) attracts mostly singers and dance troupes -are there any double acts/pre-watershed style comedians (not gimmicky kids) turning up? Or is it an area that is simply not fashionable anymore?
Originally Posted by Glenn A:
“I'm a product of the seventies and eighties and Bruce's Big Night was considered a big flop because it was only getting 9 million. These days this is similar to what IAC gets and that's classed as a big hit. Very few shows now break the 10 million barrier and if this was the case in the seventies, ITV would probably have gone bankrupt and the BBC director general would have resigned.
Also the name Salv, does this suggest an Italian link in your family as it looks like a shortened version of Salvatore?”
“I'm a product of the seventies and eighties and Bruce's Big Night was considered a big flop because it was only getting 9 million. These days this is similar to what IAC gets and that's classed as a big hit. Very few shows now break the 10 million barrier and if this was the case in the seventies, ITV would probably have gone bankrupt and the BBC director general would have resigned.
Also the name Salv, does this suggest an Italian link in your family as it looks like a shortened version of Salvatore?”
Bruce's Big Night Out was also considered a flop because it didn't match the ratings of his time on The Generation Game, then lost out to Larry Grayson's Generation Game. If you weren't beating the opposition you were a flop in those days, with what today are considered good ratings.
8/9m in the three channel 70s in primetime is probably equivalent to 3m now in terms of failure.
Originally Posted by Roscoe Barnes:
“
Dead on arrival. Very poor indeed. I caught 5-minutes of it and then turned it off. Very boring.
Happy with that rating?! 3.2m? No they won't. Yes 20% is OK - but the raw numbers are terrible. If this had been on ITV and it had got those numbers you would have had a field day declaring it the biggest ITV entertainment flop ever. It underperformed. Looks like a one series show.”
“
Dead on arrival. Very poor indeed. I caught 5-minutes of it and then turned it off. Very boring. Happy with that rating?! 3.2m? No they won't. Yes 20% is OK - but the raw numbers are terrible. If this had been on ITV and it had got those numbers you would have had a field day declaring it the biggest ITV entertainment flop ever. It underperformed. Looks like a one series show.”
if itv had got a 20% share and 3.2 million it would have been declared a triumph! they would be good figures for itv.
3 million won't be enough for "Tumble" to survive the axe. I can't really see how its meant to grow from here? It launch got so much publicity but maybe it will shoot up over the next few weeks. I doubt that though.
Originally Posted by Chris1964:
“The problem though is that there just aren't any Forsyths/Coopers/Dawsons/Morcambes/Corbetts/Barkers/Baxters and more plus a whole host of second tier variety acts around anymore. All the above were effectively compelled to make television for the pre-watershed market(and no doubt were happy to do so) and it created a golden age of comedies and LE which millions still look back with fondness(accepting that there were duff shows too). Look to today and what do we have- a raft of stand up comedians most of whom are awkward with the idea of appearing before 9.00, a host of (perhaps being unkind here) bland presenters who don't go beyond a bit of smalltalk and a link-and Ant and Dec who have cornered the market as the only family "act" who start to approach the kind of reputation as the big names of yesteryear.
So surely there should be some sort of attempt to create presenting stars/pre watershed acts/double acts. Its interesting that BGT (correct me I'm wrong) attracts mostly singers and dance troupes -are there any double acts/pre-watershed style comedians (not gimmicky kids) turning up? Or is it an area that is simply not fashionable anymore?”
“The problem though is that there just aren't any Forsyths/Coopers/Dawsons/Morcambes/Corbetts/Barkers/Baxters and more plus a whole host of second tier variety acts around anymore. All the above were effectively compelled to make television for the pre-watershed market(and no doubt were happy to do so) and it created a golden age of comedies and LE which millions still look back with fondness(accepting that there were duff shows too). Look to today and what do we have- a raft of stand up comedians most of whom are awkward with the idea of appearing before 9.00, a host of (perhaps being unkind here) bland presenters who don't go beyond a bit of smalltalk and a link-and Ant and Dec who have cornered the market as the only family "act" who start to approach the kind of reputation as the big names of yesteryear.
So surely there should be some sort of attempt to create presenting stars/pre watershed acts/double acts. Its interesting that BGT (correct me I'm wrong) attracts mostly singers and dance troupes -are there any double acts/pre-watershed style comedians (not gimmicky kids) turning up? Or is it an area that is simply not fashionable anymore?”
The comedians today just do not have the talent to create or even front a big family show,perhaps peter kay could but seems not to want to,other than him i cannot think of a comic/comedian who could hold a show together.It will be interesting what ITV do with the new Palladium show and who they get to front it.
Originally Posted by Pizzatheaction:
“In week one, yes.”
“In week one, yes.
”
Yes I remember because I think You've Been Framed was getting about 18 million and the Beeb were once again way behind the public mood and arriving late with a sub-standard version. CITA just didn't flow at all iirc.
Didn't series one maintain 10 or 11 million though?
Originally Posted by Chris1964:
“The problem though is that there just aren't any Forsyths/Coopers/Dawsons/Morcambes/Corbetts/Barkers/Baxters and more plus a whole host of second tier variety acts around anymore. All the above were effectively compelled to make television for the pre-watershed market(and no doubt were happy to do so) and it created a golden age of comedies and LE which millions still look back with fondness(accepting that there were duff shows too). Look to today and what do we have- a raft of stand up comedians most of whom are awkward with the idea of appearing before 9.00, a host of (perhaps being unkind here) bland presenters who don't go beyond a bit of smalltalk and a link-and Ant and Dec who have cornered the market as the only family "act" who start to approach the kind of reputation as the big names of yesteryear.
So surely there should be some sort of attempt to create presenting stars/pre watershed acts/double acts. Its interesting that BGT (correct me I'm wrong) attracts mostly singers and dance troupes -are there any double acts/pre-watershed style comedians (not gimmicky kids) turning up? Or is it an area that is simply not fashionable anymore?”
“The problem though is that there just aren't any Forsyths/Coopers/Dawsons/Morcambes/Corbetts/Barkers/Baxters and more plus a whole host of second tier variety acts around anymore. All the above were effectively compelled to make television for the pre-watershed market(and no doubt were happy to do so) and it created a golden age of comedies and LE which millions still look back with fondness(accepting that there were duff shows too). Look to today and what do we have- a raft of stand up comedians most of whom are awkward with the idea of appearing before 9.00, a host of (perhaps being unkind here) bland presenters who don't go beyond a bit of smalltalk and a link-and Ant and Dec who have cornered the market as the only family "act" who start to approach the kind of reputation as the big names of yesteryear.
So surely there should be some sort of attempt to create presenting stars/pre watershed acts/double acts. Its interesting that BGT (correct me I'm wrong) attracts mostly singers and dance troupes -are there any double acts/pre-watershed style comedians (not gimmicky kids) turning up? Or is it an area that is simply not fashionable anymore?”
Even the second division in the late seventies like Lenny and Jerry and Little and Large, who filled slots when the elite like Morecambe and Wise were off air, would still attract 13 million viewers. While even then Little and Large were widely disliked by the critics and their shows were excruciating viewing , the BBC knew they would get decent ratings.
Also a big source of talent then was the working men's club circuit. This provided stars such as Cannon and Ball and comedians of the old school who popped up on The Comedians.
Seeing as these 'ratings' are just fanciful extrapolations from a very limited 'sample' of the population, I have no idea why people put so much stock in them, especially citing precise numbers or claiming 'victory' of one show over another with a difference of just a few thousand, or even hundred thousand. Surely the margin for error must be pretty wide.
Originally Posted by cylon6:
“It's a tragedy how far comedy and entertainment have fallen at the BBC. In the 70s, 80s and early 90s it was propping up BBC1. It doesn't help how they're scheduled either. Everything on BBC1 in the 9pm hour and at 10pm on BBC2.”
“It's a tragedy how far comedy and entertainment have fallen at the BBC. In the 70s, 80s and early 90s it was propping up BBC1. It doesn't help how they're scheduled either. Everything on BBC1 in the 9pm hour and at 10pm on BBC2.”
Indeed, just look at this schedule in October 1987:
19.00 No Place Like Home
19.30 EastEnders
20.00 Last of the Summer Wine
20.30 You Must Be the Husband
21.00 News
21.30 Crimewatch UK
22.10 Truckers
Make that at least four comedies on primetime (five if you count Eastenders
)
Originally Posted by johnnymc:
“3 million won't be enough for "Tumble" to survive the axe. I can't really see how its meant to grow from here? It launch got so much publicity but maybe it will shoot up over the next few weeks. I doubt that though.”
“3 million won't be enough for "Tumble" to survive the axe. I can't really see how its meant to grow from here? It launch got so much publicity but maybe it will shoot up over the next few weeks. I doubt that though.”
Let the skyfaooooo, when it tumbuules.
I don't think there's much patience for new shows these days. The producers just want to find a golden ticket and people are happy to dismiss the show/recognise whether they are on to something here based on a few episodes.
Has anyone got the ratings to the Sky show that ran for a couple of series a few years ago? It was very similar in format to Tumble - though I think better delivered.
The main difference was that it was presented as celebs learning to do circus acts and was set in a big top. This instantly provided more variety than we saw on Tumble - its biggest problem in a 90 minute slot for a first show that had to grab the audience.
Plus a more viewer friendly format hook and set design that Tumble seriously lacked.
So we saw them not just balancing or twirling round a hoop but walking a tightrope, trapeze and so forth.
I expect Tumble will add these sort of elements later but there needed to be a taster of that up front to hook the audience.
As Tumble billed itself during the preview and the show as circus related I wonder if they bought the rights to the Sky show or basically remade it unasked?
Either way it would be interesting to compare ratings against normal expectations for a Sky weekend show versus the same for a BBC one. As this might give indications about which approach to the same kind of idea appealed to the audience more.
Cannot recall who presented the Sky 1 show but I imagine they were better suited to the concept than Alex Jones who simply did Tumble no favours at all.
Someone more fun presenting it (Graham Norton - Vernon Kay etc) and it would have got 5 million IMO.
Though the one good thing from the detailed ratings is that these climbed slowly but steadily throughout given the great length of the show and early start. No obvious sign of loads of viewers tuning in, getting bored and turning off.
So week two just might be interesting if it starts off around where it left off.
The main difference was that it was presented as celebs learning to do circus acts and was set in a big top. This instantly provided more variety than we saw on Tumble - its biggest problem in a 90 minute slot for a first show that had to grab the audience.
Plus a more viewer friendly format hook and set design that Tumble seriously lacked.
So we saw them not just balancing or twirling round a hoop but walking a tightrope, trapeze and so forth.
I expect Tumble will add these sort of elements later but there needed to be a taster of that up front to hook the audience.
As Tumble billed itself during the preview and the show as circus related I wonder if they bought the rights to the Sky show or basically remade it unasked?
Either way it would be interesting to compare ratings against normal expectations for a Sky weekend show versus the same for a BBC one. As this might give indications about which approach to the same kind of idea appealed to the audience more.
Cannot recall who presented the Sky 1 show but I imagine they were better suited to the concept than Alex Jones who simply did Tumble no favours at all.
Someone more fun presenting it (Graham Norton - Vernon Kay etc) and it would have got 5 million IMO.
Though the one good thing from the detailed ratings is that these climbed slowly but steadily throughout given the great length of the show and early start. No obvious sign of loads of viewers tuning in, getting bored and turning off.
So week two just might be interesting if it starts off around where it left off.
Originally Posted by Chris1964:
“Yes I remember because I think You've Been Framed was getting about 18 million and the Beeb were once again way behind the public mood and arriving late with a sub-standard version. CITA just didn't flow at all iirc.
Didn't series one maintain 10 or 11 million though?”
“Yes I remember because I think You've Been Framed was getting about 18 million and the Beeb were once again way behind the public mood and arriving late with a sub-standard version. CITA just didn't flow at all iirc.
Didn't series one maintain 10 or 11 million though?”
I can't remember exactly, but I don't think the ratings were ever a disaster. I half expected a second series.
Originally Posted by wizzywick:
“Tumble could be improved by making Louis Smith more involved in the performances. His routine last night was the best bit. He's certainly popular enough but having him reduced to a judge under a Romanian lady who nobody outside gymnastics will have heard of is one of its flaws. Its main attraction is Louis Smith but you wouldn't know that by watching it.”
“Tumble could be improved by making Louis Smith more involved in the performances. His routine last night was the best bit. He's certainly popular enough but having him reduced to a judge under a Romanian lady who nobody outside gymnastics will have heard of is one of its flaws. Its main attraction is Louis Smith but you wouldn't know that by watching it.”
I think that this is a generational thing. The Romanian lady in question is actually incredibly well known to anyone who remembers the late 1970s. She absolutely stole the 1976 Olympics. Her performances really were those rare events where the whole world with access to TV watched with amazement. In the late 1970s there were more baby girls in the USA given the name Nadia than anything else. Her TV audiences were up there with the Apollo 11 moon landing. Forbes magazine voted her one of the most influential women of the 20th Century (not just sports woman, but out of all women).
When she defected from Romania to USA in 1989 she led the news bulletins the developed world over. it has even been said (although I would think an exaggeration) that her defection played a part in the fall of Ceaucescu.
She made a complete hash of the publicity around her defection and that stopped her getting major contracts. So in this country she has had a low profile since (although higher in USA and Romania).
She is possibly hoping that if Tumble is a success it could transfer to USA alaSCD/ DWTS and she would be a judge.
In terms of the all time great sportswomen she's up there with Martina Navratilova.
Originally Posted by Belligerence:
“Indeed, just look at this schedule in October 1987:
19.00 No Place Like Home
19.30 EastEnders
20.00 Last of the Summer Wine
20.30 You Must Be the Husband
21.00 News
21.30 Crimewatch UK
22.10 Truckers
Make that at least four comedies on primetime (five if you count Eastenders )”
“Indeed, just look at this schedule in October 1987:
19.00 No Place Like Home
19.30 EastEnders
20.00 Last of the Summer Wine
20.30 You Must Be the Husband
21.00 News
21.30 Crimewatch UK
22.10 Truckers
Make that at least four comedies on primetime (five if you count Eastenders
)”
I think that was the final series of No Place Like Home. Last of the Summer Wine was a repeat of the twelve-part series shown earlier that year.
You Must Be the Husband got a surprisingly quick second series the following spring, but was scrapped after that. I often wondered if it was just one series split into two.
Originally Posted by Jaycee Dove:
“Has anyone got the ratings to the Sky show that ran for a couple of series a few years ago? It was very similar in format to Tumble - though I think better delivered.”
“Has anyone got the ratings to the Sky show that ran for a couple of series a few years ago? It was very similar in format to Tumble - though I think better delivered.”
Cirque de Celebrité averaged around 500,000 viewers consolidated for its first series, broadcast in autumn 2006.
The second rated worse, leading to its cancellation.
Originally Posted by Pizzatheaction:
“I can't remember exactly, but I don't think the ratings were ever a disaster. I half expected a second series.”
“I can't remember exactly, but I don't think the ratings were ever a disaster. I half expected a second series.”
Yes there was a great appetite for clips created by YBF but advert free CITA still managed to be a laboured format with too many links (there was a slot with gaffes from abroad and I think foreign presenters) and it seemed far fewer actual clips. That's how it came across to me and I can still remember thinking it was amazing how the Beeb could make a stuttering show out of a then golden idea-just show the bloody clips
Originally Posted by Dancc:
“Cirque de Celebrité averaged around 500,000 viewers consolidated for its first series, broadcast in autumn 2006.
The second rated worse, leading to its cancellation.”
“Cirque de Celebrité averaged around 500,000 viewers consolidated for its first series, broadcast in autumn 2006.
The second rated worse, leading to its cancellation.”
Thanks for that speedy reply....that sounds pretty reasonable in context for Sky 8 years ago. I imagine pro rata better than 3 million for BBC 1 today???
The format wasn't perfect and could have been improved. Problem is BBC's format took the idea and made it worse.
But with these kind of shows, host, judges and contestants all matter a lot.
You can forgive the slowness of the format if the bits in between are fun because of the people contracted to fill the air time in between the performances.
That was where Tumble failed - though practice might well improve things next week. We should give them all another chance. Sadly I just feel that this is not an Alex Jones style show IMO.
Originally Posted by Chris1964:
“Yes there was a great appetite for clips created by YBF but advert free CITA still managed to be a laboured format with too many links (there was a slot with gaffes from abroad and I think foreign presenters) and it seemed far fewer actual clips. That's how it came across to me and I can still remember thinking it was amazing how the Beeb could make a stuttering show out of a then golden idea-just show the bloody clips”
“Yes there was a great appetite for clips created by YBF but advert free CITA still managed to be a laboured format with too many links (there was a slot with gaffes from abroad and I think foreign presenters) and it seemed far fewer actual clips. That's how it came across to me and I can still remember thinking it was amazing how the Beeb could make a stuttering show out of a then golden idea-just show the bloody clips
”
Wasn't there a quiz round of some description, too?
Originally Posted by Pizzatheaction:
“
Wasn't there a quiz round of some description, too?”
“
Wasn't there a quiz round of some description, too?
”
I think there was. Steve Williams will probably know for certain.
41 of 536
