Originally Posted by Pizzatheaction:
“Those League Cup semi and final ratings on BBC One were impressive. Just the right time of year for big numbers, too.”
Yes, and in many ways you can argue the League Cup was probably better value for the BBC because they had two matches in primetime in the middle of winter and the final on a usually cold day in February, whereas with the FA Cup, there are more matches but most of them are out of primetime, the final's on usually a hot day in May and you're also obliged to cover the earlier rounds which are of minimal interest as well. Obviously you get more content out of the FA Cup and it's far more prestigious but that League Cup contract was really good value for a terrestrial channel, just three really big games in prime slots.
When Sky originally got the live rights to the League Cup in 1996, the deal involved ITV showing both legs of one of the semi-finals live, which seemed very strange when they couldn't show the final. The fixtures would suggest they had first choice as well which seems even odder when you consider how biased the rest of the contract was towards Sky. But I don't think it does it any good for it all to be live on Sky and the terrestrial highlights being after 11pm (and now on Channel Five which clearly is going to be less prominent than BBC1). It makes the final look just like a bog standard Premier League match, and Sky have hardly given it many trimmings in recent years either, they give it the bare minimum of pre- and post-match build-up.
Originally Posted by spursboy68:
“Time to split the rights for the Cup and League. Better all round.”
Well, of course, England and the FA Cup used to be sold together but now they're sold separately, because the Cup works better for the Beeb and England works better for ITV. I guess the problem is that Sky would want to buy both, the League Cup is really useful for Sky now they don't have the FA Cup, but I don't see why we can't have live semi-finals and finals on terrestrial again. Sky seem to have the Football League over a barrel.
Originally Posted by lewiep93:
“18:35 - BBC News: 4.32m (23.6%)
18:50 - BBC Regional News: 5.13m (27.4%)
18:45 - ITV News & Weather: 3.60m (19.7%)”
Originally Posted by Dancc:
“Consider that they had three live Rugby World Cup fixtures back-to-back, one including a home nation, a two hour special of one of their stalwarts in The X Factor, and the opening episode of the final series of one of their best loved drama serials in the past decade.”
Well, I think is anything illustrates the folly of John Whittingdale's point about the BBC News, it's those ratings yesterday, ITV had a big lead-in for the news and a hugely popular programme after it, and many viewers still appear to have deliberately switched over to watch the BBC News. Viewers genuinely prefer it.
Originally Posted by gottago:
“I loved Pop Idol Extra. Very much an early digital show where they didn't really seem to know what to do on it. They were literally showing the rehearsals of the Saturday show in full and live which I can't imagine they'd do today.”
Originally Posted by Aurora13:
“They had a Friday Xtra Factor for the first series. I can't remember mid-week. Pop Idol used to run for 2/3 days on ITV 2. It was excellent as you saw them in the preliminary rounds all practising. Far more 'real' in terms of talent show rather than staged stuff these shows have become.”
Oh, I always get sad hearing this stuff about Pop Idol, such a great show at the time. Such a shame it ended, I wish it was still going. The other thing about Pop Idol Extra in midweek was that it was three hours long, as you say very much in the style of early digital shows that used to go on for hours and hours and hours. And of course as suggested it illustrated how Pop Idol so frequently went behind the scenes and showed viewers everything and talked about it, so it felt like it was on the viewers' side, not the horrible contrived cynical stuff we get now. People forget now but Pop Idol was a hugely successful show among all viewers in those days, including people like me who wouldn't touch The X Factor with a bargepole.
Originally Posted by Oliver_Tomlinso:
“6.4 would still be the lowest launch since it came back, that's not really respectable(was hoping it would do better)”
But as I mentioned the other day, what was the hook? I know a new series of Doctor Who is an event in its own right, but it was one of the few where there wasn't anything to capture the attention of the casual audience, no new Doctor or companion. It was just Doctor Who is back and it's the same as last time. That's absolutely fine of course because you don't want to be contriving stuff for the sake of it, but at the same time you usually start a series with something interesting for the casual audience to latch onto, and you didn't this time, which is why I think it's perhaps wrong to compare it with previous launches which weren't just the first in a new series but also often a major relaunch.
Originally Posted by Oliver_Tomlinso:
“but there is already massive chunks between series, don't forget the last episode before saturday's was christmas day last year”
I never understand this argument, I don't know why Doctor Who has to come back so frequently. Doc Martin is on now and it's been two years since the last series, and that's had very little effect on the ratings. I don't know why people want to rush Doctor Who back on screen if that means it won't be as good as it can be. If the option is them rushing into production, with Moffatt having to knock off the scripts quicker than ever and filming being crammed into a short timeframe, creating sub-standard episodes, or us waiting for a bit longer but getting better episodes, I don't know why anyone wouldn't prefer the latter. A writer-led series like Doctor Who shouldn't be churning things out like a sausage factory, it should be producing as many episodes as the production team think can effectively been realised in the timeframe they have to make them. If that means missing a year because Capaldi wants to do something else or Moffatt can't think of anything, so be it.
You say it hasn't been on since Christmas Day but nine months is nothing in TV terms. Strictly was last on on Christmas Day. Downton was last on on Christmas Day. And nobody remembers when things were last on anyway. It's a creative industry and episodes are ready when they're ready. It shouldn't have to fit around schedules, the schedules should fit around it.
Originally Posted by Chief_Wiggum:
“I think it may also be that the new episodes of Family Guy are specifically advertised as new now, so more viewers have realised that these are new episodes and not just the same old repeats.”
That said, though, the BBC2 announcer said the second episode last night was new, when it wasn't. They've all been announced as new, I think people are just more used to watching Family Guy later in the evening. It's like how BBC3 have been showing American Dad in recent years around midnight, a bit of a demotion from when it was on at 10pm but it did just as well.
