|
||||||||
The Ratings Thread (Part 68) |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#8826 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,628
|
Quote:
BBC does not have a default audience, recent rstings show that, some shows are rating badly, and some LE offerings on Saturdays on BBC1 have bombed. That is not an acceptable excuse, that some just come home and switch on BBC1.
SCD shows how a show engages its audience , has popular appeal, and the whole family can watch together. SCD has a tight budget and produces a brilliant show. XF has too big a budget spent mainly on inflated fees for the judges, and not enough spent on research, nurture, and the judges are out of touch, too old for the teenage market, and its loyal fans have all but given up on it. The facts of the matter are this: - ITV are still making money - The advertisers are still making money - Simon Cowell is still making money - X Factor is still producing successful artists Do you think for ONE SECOND that we'd still be seeing X Factor if it wasn't making money? Delusional. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#8827 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 23,342
|
Quote:
2008. It got 11.9m, partly because Britney herself appeared (it wasn't long after her meltdown). A Britney week wouldn't get any boost these days, her appearance on Jonathan Ross got dire numbers and didn't she even appear on Loose Women recently?
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#8828 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 23,342
|
Quote:
Last week: 9.60m (44.8%) - Total viewers watching TV across slot: 21.43m
This week: 9.78m (46.3%) - Total viewers watching TV across slot: 21.12m So Strictly's audience went up despite less people watching TV during the time it was on. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8829 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 18,879
|
Quote:
Thanks for the personal remarks, plenty coming today. Where are the moderators?
There's already big distinction between the two of them, XF is about commercial singers whereas The Voice is about sending people to sleep. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8830 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 117,021
|
Someone needs to tell ITV to take the 'Live' graphic off The X Factor repeat.
![]() Reading the thread I wonder if part of The X Factor's problem is it doesn't quite know it's identity - is it for the younger audience or is it for the older? In one breath it's supposed to be advertiser friendly; it axes Louis and Mel B for Nick and Rita and switches up the themes before bringing back Louis and Sharon and having themes like Motown and (seemingly in the future) Disco and Divas. And people are supposed to know whether it's a show for them? As an aside, the average age of the Strictly panel is 57.5. The X Factor panel? 55.8, Not a massive difference considering one show is supposedly for pensioners whilst the other is for the youth of the day. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8831 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,116
|
Quote:
Well the Xfactor has been boring me stiff this year too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8832 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 4,542
|
Quote:
Why should anyone not interested in SCD care about its ratings? Comparisons are so 2010. If XF was winning this thread would be dismissing the comparisons entirely.
It has a default audience just by being on the BBC, of course it's going to do well. Oh lighten up a little, please. Audience interaction is always a good thing. |
|
|
|
|
#8833 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 23,342
|
Quote:
The apprentice was much better tonight, hope it retains most of its audience
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8834 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 117,021
|
Quote:
BBC1 doesn't have a default audience,programmes do. If BBC1 did have a default audience Tumble would have been a hit and have numbers the size of Strictly and Cuff would have matched Bake Off's ratings on Wednesdays. If Strictly wasn't there 9m wouldn't be automatically switching on BBC1.
BBC One does have a default audience but it's earned it... especially when you recall before the turn of the century it was ITV which had that default audience (except for events of national importance and Christmas). |
|
|
|
|
|
#8835 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,116
|
Quote:
The jeans advertising challenge was one of the bear things The Apprentice has done. Perhaps the word of mouth for this will boost it next week too.
Also looking forward to seeing week 1's timeshift. Is 1.8m a possibility? |
|
|
|
|
|
#8836 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 117,021
|
Quote:
The jeans advertising challenge was one of the bear things The Apprentice has done. Perhaps the word of mouth for this will boost it next week too.
![]() In fairness they are getting similar ratings so...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8837 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 23,342
|
Quote:
Strictly popularity has remained the same it not like they are now snatching x factor viewers they are never going to reach heights x factor did with 15 million viewers etc the problem for x factor is the amount of repeats it has on Tv and having YouTube as a means of catch up you can watch all performances in around 15 minutes. I think x factor would actually perform better on a weeknight like in the US
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8838 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 23,342
|
Quote:
I'd probably move The X Factor forward so the episodes start an hour before Strictly finishes and push +1 for all it's worth. Buy the Pixar rights and place them across Strictly (the Toy Story set, Inside Out, The Incredibles, Monsters Inc., Frozen etc.) leading to a 7.30pm start for The X Factor, then have a new drama leading out of it... After Life didn't do too badly on Saturday nights back in the day if I recall correctly. The Strictly clash doesn't seem to affect The X Factor now so make the most of the - albeit declining - lead out to try and get something else going.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8839 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 11,066
|
Quote:
It's a bit ironic though - The X Factor (apparently) having mediocre contestants who cannot really stand up to the role is an awful thing and is HUGE mistake. The Apprentice (apparently) having mediocre contestants who cannot really stand up to the role is the best thing ever.
![]() In fairness they are getting similar ratings so... ![]() The Apprentice is one of the most manipulated reality shows going, as due to no viewer vote off, and winners often being based on an opinion, and then the reason for picking a loser changing from one week to the next, anyone could be fired at any time. Apparently a feel good show is better than a nasty show as well! It's because of this The Apprentice goes against every one of the 'rules' that people say makes a good reality TV show, yet still does well every year. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8840 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 23,342
|
Quote:
I'm afraid I cannot competely agree with this. If that's the case why do shows see an uplift in viewers when it moved from BBC Two to BBC One? Why does the BBC continually move Andy Murray matches from Two to One when there's already schedule space for them? Why was EastEnders kept on BBC One during the Olympics rather than moved to BBC Two, which would have stopped the switching between channels at odd moments?
BBC One does have a default audience but it's earned it... especially when you recall before the turn of the century it was ITV which had that default audience (except for events of national importance and Christmas). But programmes earn a default audience over time. If BBC1 has a default audience then the Reggie Yates documentary on Monday at 9pm on BBC1 would have outrated BBC2. EastEnders has a default audience that followed it to BBC2 in 2012 when The Olympics was on but facing popular Olympic Sports on BBC1 knocked its ratings. There's a default audience to a point but not to the level some on here say it is |
|
|
|
|
|
#8841 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 23,342
|
Quote:
It's a bit ironic though - The X Factor (apparently) having mediocre contestants who cannot really stand up to the role is an awful thing and is HUGE mistake. The Apprentice (apparently) having mediocre contestants who cannot really stand up to the role is the best thing ever.
![]() In fairness they are getting similar ratings so... ![]() Quote:
We can be very hypocritical here. Criticising The X Factor for manipulating situations and then we love The Apprentice and it does the same. Just an observation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8842 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 430
|
Not to be glib, but the X Factor no longer has the "X Factor".
One no longer needs to know the names of the current finalists in order to make pleasant chitchat with acquaintances. The show has lost its cultural relevance. It's the same sad journey that American Idol took. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8843 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,015
|
Quote:
I think the show's goose is cooked now. They could try and bring back Cheryl and Dannii for Sharon and Nicole to recreate the 'peak' panel but they wouldn't be as nearly as entertaining; especially as Louis doesn't particularly get on with either of the two women.
They'll probably do a Voice and radically cut the live shows in future runs before saying goodbye to it in three years time. That or, if Britain's Got Talent is still doing well and Simon is tying the two up in the contract, switching it away from Strictly. I liked her but Dannii was wallpaper. It's very hard to recreate the magic of a specific era even with the same ingredients. XF's problem is that more people see through it now and have moved on. Quote:
But they're cheaper to make, they're made in house and their decline has been more gradual and in line with the majority of shows around them ( rather than a 4m gap) - The X Factor has lost 2.5m viewers in a matter of weeks.
Quote:
This is what I was thinking, how many people under the age of 21 would really have an inkling what Motown was and also watch XF- I can't see there being much crossover: I think they should calm down on the theme's like Strictly do, have Halloween, movie soundtrack week, and one other one where they can make the staging feel like an event and leave it at that- Nobody in that show last night will be doing Motown in the real.world so why do it on XF?
I TV must be panicking now over the Voice aquisition because it could actually accelerate fatigue and damage both show, especially with the kids spin off to come as well Quote:
Strictly popularity has remained the same it not like they are now snatching x factor viewers they are never going to reach heights x factor did with 15 million viewers etc the problem for x factor is the amount of repeats it has on Tv and having YouTube as a means of catch up you can watch all performances in around 15 minutes. I think x factor would actually perform better on a weeknight like in the US
Quote:
Why should anyone not interested in SCD care about its ratings? Comparisons are so 2010. If XF was winning this thread would be dismissing the comparisons entirely.
It has a default audience just by being on the BBC, of course it's going to do well. Oh lighten up a little, please. Audience interaction is always a good thing. Quote:
That gap!
Jesus, what an embarrassment for X Factor. Strictly is killing it this year. I did a double take when I saw the gap had hit 4m!Quote:
Well you hate on it every year so that's hardly surprising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8844 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,116
|
Quote:
I know!
I did a double take when I saw the gap had hit 4m! |
|
|
|
|
|
#8845 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tatooine
Posts: 1,500
|
Quote:
Dire. Truly dire. Worse than I thought it would be. What an absolute cock up. That TXF rating is piss poor.
Meet The Parents is an absolute bomb. 7 more weeks to go. SCD has got a complete walk over. With that rating I think ITV should pullit. Its bound to drop again next week. Regarding XF, I like this years panel, but the whole show is just so meh now, and yet again a really weak schedule either side. Meet The Parents was destined to bomb. Enough said. I think it's time to reboot Blind Date with Willaboozy. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8846 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 117,021
|
Quote:
BBC2 and Channel 4 for some reason will get less viewers if they show the same programme as BBC1 or ITV. Also when a programme shifts to BBC1 it can increase because of instead of it fading a more popular programme on BBC1 it faces a less popular programme on BBC2.
But programmes earn a default audience over time. If BBC1 has a default audience then the Reggie Yates documentary on Monday at 9pm on BBC1 would have outrated BBC2. EastEnders has a default audience that followed it to BBC2 in 2012 when The Olympics was on but facing popular Olympic Sports on BBC1 knocked its ratings. There's a default audience to a point but not to the level some on here say it is Quote:
I said something similar on Friday morning.
![]() Maybe The Apprentice has hit the bottom and come out the other side - people just embrace the madness. I wonder whether The X Factor will reach that point before it's too late?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8847 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,683
|
Quote:
Whatever ITV showed against BBC big hitters, either new, existing, or filler, would be criticised one way or another.
You are either wasting a solid show, killing off a new show before it even starts, or deliberately handing the audience to the BBC by not trying. All variants have been discussed here over the years and it always results in calls that they should do one of the other options until they do, when it should then be the third option, and then back to the 1st option! Pick your battles. TP the Chase would get the same ratings and aren't under threat. They're the right shows. You aim to grow MTP or some equivalent in to a show that one day can take on SCD. If ITV really want to take on SCD they may be better trying drama instead. I would not though. They aren't running adverts when SCD is on anyway so celebrity quizzes make sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8848 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 20,370
|
Quote:
As an aside, the average age of the Strictly panel is 57.5. The X Factor panel? 55.8, Not a massive difference considering one show is supposedly for pensioners whilst the other is for the youth of the day. The presenters' age doesn't seem to match the skew of a show. I expect most of Amazon's new subscribers for The Grand Tour will be younger than Jeremy Clarkson (56). |
|
|
|
|
|
#8849 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,020
|
Quote:
Someone needs to tell ITV to take the 'Live' graphic off The X Factor repeat.
![]() Reading the thread I wonder if part of The X Factor's problem is it doesn't quite know it's identity - is it for the younger audience or is it for the older? In one breath it's supposed to be advertiser friendly; it axes Louis and Mel B for Nick and Rita and switches up the themes before bringing back Louis and Sharon and having themes like Motown and (seemingly in the future) Disco and Divas. And people are supposed to know whether it's a show for them? As an aside, the average age of the Strictly panel is 57.5. The X Factor panel? 55.8, Not a massive difference considering one show is supposedly for pensioners whilst the other is for the youth of the day. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8850 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 23,342
|
Quote:
Ouch. Really poor for X Factor. It shouldn't have gone below 6m and even the peak was below 7m. Something has clearly gone awry in the past couple of weeks. 2 weeks ago it peaked at 8.1m and last night was 6.7m. What the hell is it going to get on Halloween/Bonfire Night?
Disaster for the rest of the lineup too (which probably then didn't help XF). Meet The Parents was DOA. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:48.









Maybe The Apprentice has hit the bottom and come out the other side - people just embrace the madness. I wonder whether The X Factor will reach that point before it's too late?