Which could explain why the timeshifts and iPlayer figures are bouyant. But how does that compare with CHM Top Gear?


True, but few programmes have such a budget. That's the crucial factor. A programme has to be seen to have its worth, and has to be deserving (either by way of viewing figures which translate to people watching & enjoying, or PSB worthiness and distinctiveness). I am not sure that this iteration of TG can claim a PSB crown.

And even timeshifts (via Consolidated figures) have dropped, so unless there has been a commensurate shift (a massive shift) to iPlayer viewing for this series when compared to the last series, people are choosing not to watch regardless.

There is also a case to be made that maybe the BBC were stupid in the extreme in launching a reboot in the Summer and knowing full well that it would be up against football for most of its run (when it should have been obvious that it would need the best possible chance to succeed and to NOT attract the sort of media attention that it has).

I think trying to say 'Old Top Gear's first episodes were poor and it got better so we should give Current Top Gear time' is a false argument. Old Top Gear was not following on from a previous incarnation that was one of the most popular TV shows on the entire planet. Old Top Gear did not have a massive media build up. Old Top Gear did not have the budget current Top Gear has. They are completely different shows in completely different situations.

Current Top Gear will stand or fall on it's own performance compared to expectations, not on whether it does better or worse than a show that 15 years ago was considered a very small niche enterprise and had a minuscule budget. Those expectations have already been set - they were before Current Top Gear hit the screens - and given the show's performance I think it's quite hard to imagine the judgement is positive.

It's pretty clear the BBC are worried. They've resorted to posting articles on their news websitre under the guise of explaining 'the changing face of TV' (as per CE's twitter rant) but actually just attempting to justify the falling TG viewer figures. Unless they can show like-for-like rating across all platforms for 'old' and 'new' TG it just comes across as desperate.

Anyway, after the last episode I'm calling it a day. The challenges and races were what made CHM TG great, they were the highlight of any series usually. This pathetic attempt to merge the two with no apparent motivation for either the race element or the second-hand challenge element was the nail in the coffin for me. I've even lost the love for MLB. The other segments are just coming acorss like 5th Gear now too.

Not at all. You could always check out their accounts and find out for yourself.


But neither was it the first incarnation of the show. Just as this in another one.


Indeed. It will lose some of the viewers who don't like the new version but it will also pick up viewers who didn't watch the old version. Hell! I've watched the new series and I have only a passing interest in fast cars as I love the Need For Speed games

Now they want to change the time slot if England get through, ain't going to make a difference to the failure.

It seems to be doing an awful lot more of the former than the latter.

why do that after claiming that its the online viewing figures that are the real thing

It may have been a stroke of genius too. They can defend the figures because of the competition on TV at the same time. If there was nothing to compete with it and the figures were the same, they'd have a hell of a job defending it.

Not really. Old Old TG was cancelled as it neither filled a niche that was required or filled the entertainment requirement for it to stay on air.
Old TG started fresh in a totally new direction with different ideas, features and presentation style. It had to carve it's own way, which it did very quickly.
New TG is not doing ANYTHING new. It has the template of Old TG that it is fairly much sticking too with minor tweaks only. Unfortunately these tweaks have all been in exactly the wrong direction in mine & many others opinions. It is not breaking new ground or forging it's own path, it is simply ploughing through the undergrowth on the edge of Old TG grove and struggling to keep up.

I don't think there is any chance Top Gear will be cancelled based on 2 million viewers per week.

The figures may not be as high as the last series but 2 million is still a decent figure and it's not like the show is running at a loss.

Don't get all the love for Clarkson, on any given day he could be just as loud and irritating as any other presenter.

New Top Gear needs to stop trying to copy old Top Gear in every manner but make a few subtle changes, keep the challenges but lose the things like the Stig intro and audience encouragement.

Yep, but how much of that is based on the value of his investments?


Or not, if reservations didn't require deposits. But tooling up to produce the Model 3 is going to cost a lot more than $300m, hence why Tesla issued a couple of billion in bonds to pay for that. But the real challenge is Tesla's needs volume to survive, so moving into volume car territory. So will be competing with cars from other niche suppliers like this one-

http://www.ford.co.uk/ConfigureyourCar/Focus/Electric

With a US base price of $5k less. So given the range of competing and existing EVs, TG was probably right to focus on real cars.

It may not be running at a loss YET! The broadcasters around the world that do buy TG are more than likely to either stop buying the show or demand a reduction in the price paid to reflect the presumed fall in their own viewer numbers since the new team took over. The BBC might be able to justify continuing to make TG while it gets reasonable (currently I'd say very poor) viewing figures in the UK while it can sell the show elsewhere. It won't be able to if the resale value falls and the show starts to cost money to make. Neither are the likely to just make TG to sell abroad as they are not allowed to do so as such. They would probably have to sell the show to BBC worldwide in it's entirety who could then make it to sell elsewhere & even back to the BBC if it became more popular.

It might not be enough considering the show's budget though.

There are reputation issues here too. Given that the BBC paid big wads of cash to Clarkson & Wilman to buy the rights to the show, they really ought to have anticipated that there would come a time when CHM&W would want to move on. The BBC clearly wasn't ready for it to happen when it did, despite CHM's contracts expiring. The investment they'd made in the show and the money it was bringing in really did require the BBC to have had some contingency plans in place simply to mitigate the risk and protect its investment. A big mistake that it didn't.

Now with a poor reboot under its belt, the BBC has to pull out all the stops to do a proper refresh for series two, learning from the feedback and talking up its plans with the overseas buyers to try to keep them on board. Yes, it might well cost them in terms of reduced revenue but surely an organisation the size and depth of the BBC has all the skills and talent to turn it around. It might not seem so on the strength of the four episodes screened so far but reputationally the BBC simply has to find the right people both in front of the cameras and behind the scenes, to protect and drive forward the brand it paid so much money for. I'm sure it can do it but how well it might manage it is another matter. I really can't see them giving up and not trying, though.

Some of the alleged figures of the old show were that it cost £500,000 per episode but made £50 million.

If the new show makes a fraction of that, it is still a worthy venture.

Even with 2 million viewers per week, I just cannot see it failing to make back it's production costs, there are Top Gear books, lunch boxes and a whole host of other ways it makes money plus the new show has no Clarkson and Wilman dividend which was quite a sizeable chunk.

If ratings fell below 1 million and no other countries were interested, then I could see it cancelled but that seems highly unlikely.

Bookies are slashing odds on a second series of Chris Evans fronted Top Gear being commissioned....

So the incident that resulted in Clarkson leaving was all a cunning plot so he could leave and go to an obscure channel with deep pockets?

Huh? I made no reference to that incident, it's irrelevant to my point which was simply that the BBC spent a lot of money buying the Top Gear brand and format, no doubt taking a long-term view, yet had no contingency plans for when CHM would inevitably move on.

Well, I doubt very much if he has $12billion in cash The value of the shares in the companies he owns would be included, yes. But you have to take the value of those shares as they are now when considering how easy it would be for him to raise capital fro investors and to put into the other businesses (i.e. capitalise one against another). Saying he'll be worth less if his companies are worth less and his companies will be worth less if he has less money to put into them is a circular argument.


They did. Minimum deposit for a reservation was $1000 and they got 300,000 reservations. Thus $300m of capital. They have that cash in the bank already.


They already have the investment required to build the factory and they've got deposits down on (IIRC) something like the first six month's production run of cars. Not everything needs to be made in the millions from day one to be a success.



Well, obviously they couldn't put a car that isn't actually available for sale in a group test, that's fair enough. But when people say 'Oh, smaller company F can't compete with (established multinational N in a market that the big company is already in' I am reminded of this quote, spoken by the head of (now effectively defunct) business phone company Palm on the eve of the release of the original iPhone


Ford make nice enough cars but that does not in any sense mean if the market pivots, they'll be able to follow it wth guaranteed success. if that were true, we'd all be driving Daimlers, not Fords.

If the Euro 2nd round games continue to be as poor tomorrow as they have been today, it wouldn't surprise me to see a spike in the ratings for this week's Top Gear!

both the sun and the star reports matt blanc has told bbc to fire chris evans or he will quit

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...it-Threat-Sack

Whatever the truth behind this story, it is not good publicity.

And the Express:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/683...it-Threat-Sack

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbi...-star-leblanc/

Jordan, at the European GP last week, said that Jenson Button was "favourite for Top Gear". Not sure that he would know anything specific, although he does usually get all the F1 driver move rumours right. Either way, it seems that if the BBC weren't already considering their options, they need to do so rather quickly.

It's widely been reported that CE was hired for three series but I hadn't realised that MLB was signed up for two.

There is no correlation between the veracity of a story and the number tabloids (or even other newspapers) that it appears in. Once a story appears in one then the others will copy it, either rewriting it or using 'it has been reported that'. But it is still the same story and neither the Sun or Star are known as authorative sources.

Note the use of 'allegedly', 'insiders said', 'a show source' etc

I dont know anyone who's still tuning in anyway .