Haha. No, i'm really not. I don't even watch it. But I do find it amusing that it's all being attributed to the lack of live feed and the flag-wavers are roaming the threads spreading their bad news. And "web clips" aren't even remotely relevant to the main show's ratings, they are more pertinent to the live feed (or lack of it). I'm talking about 4OD watching. Time-shifted (+1) also *doesn't* include DVR viewing. BARB doesn't have a real way of gauging DVR viewing. It'll be back next year, despite all the blow-hards who don't understand how TV is changing.

Okay, so admittedly there are more ways to watch the show now. But this is the case for all terrestrial output these days. How come other shows aren't experiencing drops anywhere near as big as we've seen with BB?

And yes, it quite possibly will be back for another run next year as the contract doesn't expire until next year. I predict a farewell series bringing back some old faces could be in the offing, it's been mooted for a while and does seem like the best possible send off they could give. Might rate a bit better than this current lot too.

I don't mind Piers Morgan but I'm getting a bit bored of him boasting about his chatshow, ONE episode got 5m while the others were 4-4.5m and Jonathan Ross has a decent audience for his chatshow but the two shows are polar opposites and both are very good.

All these changes affect every television show. OK, Big Brother will possibly be affected more because it's core audience is 16-34s (who are miore likely to use those other methods), but a 30% drop is still unacceptable.

This is what the Big Brother producer said before this series launched:


So it's getting nearly 1 million less than what they would have liked. I don't really see how these ratings can be defended.

Because the show skews so young - its viewers are far and away younger than any prime-time show, and as such, far more likely to drift off to, or only, watch on the web either by 4OD or YouTube. Older viewers for other terrestrial shows are less likely to do this. I grew out of BB long ago, like most people my age, and our replacements aren't watching the show in nearly the same way as we did in the early part of the 2000s.

I don't think it's got an unlimited life in it...I mean, why would it? Very few shows last 10 years, why should Big Brother be any different?

How many people watch on 4OD? Maybe 100,000 max? Let's say 300,000 - that's really pushing it (it won't be anywhere near that). It still doesn't anywhere near make up the big loss in viewers.

Episodes aren't on YouTube anymore due to Channel 4's clamping down.

What's YouTube got to do with it? I thought we were talking about full episodes, not clips?

Episodes on 4OD probably generate about an extra 15-20,000. Big deal. How can we even guarantee that those viewers are unique? We can't really.

I'm afraid the fact is despite having all these wonderful new ways to watch TV available to us, the vast majority still prefer to sit down at an allocated time and watched a scheduled programme on broadcast TV. As such, it is the most important rating of them all.

I don't know, they don't have to tell anyone. You don't know either!

meanwhile, there's millions and millions of DVRs out there silently recording and playing them back whenever. I don't watch *any* television live any more - I don't suppose i'm alone. BARB is a busted flush and increasingly irrelevant. there's a single clip on You Tube of someone called Dogface (really?) that's got 233,000 views. The clips and webpage have enforced Lucozade Big Brother branding. It's that sort of thing that matters just as much as BARB ratings these days. Oh, and how it's trending on twitter.

Interesting article. BBC Scotland has a history of getting hold of a previously successful light entertainment format, and ruining it.

Look at the mess they made of Jet Set in 2007. The show had been running successfully for six years, then BBC Scotland got hold of it and removed the main Lotto draw from it, made other tweaks to the format, lowered the production values (flickering back projections, lower picture quality, lower sound quality etc) and knocked the audience down from 7m to 2m at a stroke.

I know the move to Wednesdays played a big factor in that, but I seriously doubt it accounted for the whole 5m lost viewers.

And even when BBC Scotland produce a new format, such as This Time Tomorrow, it looks like it's been made on a low budget.

They do a really good job with the production values on sitcoms such as Life of Riley and The Old Guys, so why do they make such a bog of things when they do light ent?

I disgaree entirely. I haven't watched a scheduled programme at its alloted time since I got a TiVo about 7 years ago. Why watch adverts when you don't have to?

You only have to see how Dollhouse survived in America to see the way of the future, and it's not scheduled.

You're not alone, no, but very much in the minority.

The point is, even if you were to add up:

Official C4 rating
Official C4+1 rating
Official E4 rating
Official E4+1 rating
4OD viewing
DVR viewing

Would it even equal what it was getting last year in the unofficial figures for C4 and C4+1 alone?

I doubt it.

BBC iPlayer stats were shown on another forum. The top show was Doctor Who with around 500,000 views.

Based on that, I very much doubt Big Brother gets near that on 4OD.


It's a 2 minute clip of someone looking at their bra. Nothing like a whole episode of the show!

Why would I be "very much" in the minority? There are easily 4 million DVRs out there which are being completely ignored by BARB. You have no DVR figures, and BARB could only make a random stab at them. They have no way of measuring what is being played back on a DVR even if they have a measuring device in the correct proportion of homes.

I don't have a particular axe to grind about BB. I think all ratings, which are governing what does and doesn't get made, to a large degree, are completely bogus these days. But BB's the one with the headlines (or not) at the moment. When it comes to the likes of Skins or Shameless getting cancelled for bogus poor ratings, that might get me properly agitated!

Listen, I love PVR technology as much as the next man. There's two in this house.

But for PVR recordings to become my sole viewing? I think that would be going a tad far. I prefer to watch most stuff live as it goes out and only timeshift stuff when necessary, for example if clashes occur.

Adverts are not that bad. They are a necessary evil I'm afraid. I prefer using the time freed up from adverts to do other things like fetch drinks, etc. I think that's the case for a lot of people.

As for your US example, you can't really do a direct comparison with the UK. It's totally different over there.

I have not doubt you're right, perhaps not as many as Dr. Who, but even half of that is significant. As to the clip...well, it's 233,000 views of the Lucozade advert, which I assume are the same as the break bumpers in the show. Now that IS significant.

I don't see why not. This is obviously an apples & oranges thing but I do watch all my viweing through the DVR. People have always hated the adverts so I don't think i'm alone.

The US is not nearly as different as you think. They have 5 terrestrial networks, less than 10 credible subscription channels, a 20 million viewer show is a massive hit and a 3 million show is on the wobble....and that's in a place where there's 250m viewers. The only real difference now is the higher production values they can afford.

DVRs are included in the official figures - that's my understanding.

The overnights include those watching the show as it's broadcast, or later the same night if they've recorded it, while the official figures add all those watching within 7 days of the original broadcast. And with BB, it's highly unlikey many would tape it to watch more than 7 days later.


Even so, the comparable figures - the pure overnights - are still considerably down on last year. There is no possible way of dressing that up to look good.

Being Scottish, I feel the need to defend BBC Scotland here

Regarding the move to Wednesdays, it was completely abandonded in the schedules. These were the days before The One Show, so it probably had a dreadful lead in such as an Open All Hours repeat. Also, it wasn't BBC Scotland's decision to remove the draw element. The draw isn't made until 10:35 on a Wednesday, so they couldn't make the draw during the show anyway. I think it was the fault of the BSI in moving Jet Set to a Wednesday in the first place. You can't blame BBC Scotland for that - they just produced it.

OK, the production values may not have been amazing, but in 2007, Jet Set would have been recorded at ancient Queen Margaret Drive. BBC Scotland have now moved to Pacific Quay, which has one of the most modern TV studios in Europe. Did you happen to notice that the last series of 1 vs. 100 was filmed there?

Yeah, I agree. Cheap factual programmes can work on ITV1 if they have the right content. Stuff about homes or stuff abroad tends to work well, but stuff about beauty, fat people and fighting/war does not.

A very good night for ITV1 in general-The Bill seemed to be boosted slightly by the fact it was a start of 2 parter with the exit of the longest serving female cast member. It hasn't managed a 25% share in a while IIRC. Also Emmerdale manages its highest rating of the week and a slightly higher share.

Also good nights for CH4 and FIVE, and good for FIVE's film which has been shown numerous times and is 45 years old.

Overall most things seemed boosted slightly due to the poorer weather and people deciding to stay in for the first day since last week.

TORCHWOOD ALERT!!!!!

Finally, we have a date for Torchwood:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/2009/wk27/

But of course, the BSI have struck again. With Casualty 1909 on Sundays and Hotel Bablyon on Friday's, one will have to be dropped for the week.

Bit disappointing for Occupation last night, and it was a cracker of an episode. But then that's the argument for the BBC and the licence fee. ITV just couldn't take that risk any more.

But what is more significant?

- A loss of about 1.3m seeing it around 10 times during the main televised broadcast. (I appreciate Lucozade weren't the sponsor last year, but you take my point)

Or...

- 200k seeing it a few times on a web clip, of which most of these probably watch the main show anyway and therefore there is no measurable impact on reach.

I know which one would stand out to me if I worked for Lucozade.

I think we're just going to have to beg to differ. I agree with you to an extent about the BARB system being old-fashioned, but it's the best we've got. DVR viewing is measured, this from the BARB website:


http://www.barb.co.uk/about/faq?_s=4

What are the chances of it being in a 8pm slot all week? Would that work? (note it'd require shifting EastEnders around a bit)

Fair enough.


To be honest, I've always thought the 1 vs 100 format doesn't work as well as it should, mainly because it's had two presenters who've sucked the tension and excitement out of it. But, you're right that the recent series was a polished affair in terms of its production values.

I think the Jet Set thing was too ambitious for BBC Scotland at the time, probably through a combination of unsuitable facilities and a lack of experience in producing a predominantly live network programme of that nature.

I hope this doesn't sound unkind, but I've always perceived a lower standard of production values in ITV entertainment shows than in BBC entertainment shows. Not a huge amount of difference, admittedly, and certainly not enough to spoil anyone's enjoyment of ITV ent, but it is there, and a similar difference between excellent production values and very good values was evident in This Time Tomorrow last summer.

I think there's a lesson for the BBC (and other channels) in moving production of various shows to different parts of the country in order to meet quotas: they need to be certain the product is of the same quality it was before the move. They need to be certain the necessary skills and facilities are in place, and they must be realistic in their expectations of the production.

I think BBC Scotland did a terrific job of the two sitcoms they made for BBC One earlier this year. Okay, the scripts were ropey in places, but blame for that lies with the commissioners in London. Anyone who's seen BBC Wales's dreadful forays into sitcom will appreciate just how well BBC Scotland succeeded with these shows.

There is a separate issue of whether those sitcoms have been recommissioned in order to meet quotas, whereas London-based sitcoms with similar-sized audiences have bitten the dust, but again, that's no fault of BBC Scotland's.