Despite being a commercial concern, Netflix famously refuse to release viewership figures for their series on the grounds that their revenue is directed towards producing programmes of quality, rather than churning out quantities of dross. Perhaps UK media attention should be similarly focused less on the daily ratings war, but on Audience Appreciation Index scores, and how series contribute to a channel's brand identity. For instance, BBC Four's historical documentaries and musical programmes may never rate particularly highly, but mesh well in terms of the channel's "arts and culture" niche, whereas BBC Two seems to have become an ill-defined Corporation dumping-ground, and likewise Film4 has a clearly-defined purpose, whereas its parent channel's alternative edge seems to have been blunted since the turn of the millennium. Of course, commercial channels may have more need for ratings as a yardstick towards profitability, but even here, appreciation scores might be a significant help towards ensuring the demographic mix is well-balanced.
Should focus be on audience appreciation, rather than ratings?
I think there is much to be said for measuring enjoyment first and actual eyeballs second.
I imagine there are data sets for appreciation out there somewhere. I'd guess BBC Four would probably have the highest rating of the "low number" channels.
I imagine there are data sets for appreciation out there somewhere. I'd guess BBC Four would probably have the highest rating of the "low number" channels.
Originally Posted by mike65:
“I think there is much to be said for measuring enjoyment first and actual eyeballs second.
I imagine there are data sets for appreciation out there somewhere. I'd guess BBC Four would probably have the highest rating of the "low number" channels.”
“I think there is much to be said for measuring enjoyment first and actual eyeballs second.
I imagine there are data sets for appreciation out there somewhere. I'd guess BBC Four would probably have the highest rating of the "low number" channels.”
It seems BARB conducted the AI until 2002, and BBC have conducted it for all channels since. Surprising it isn't more publicised, they could publish weekly data for the leading channels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appreciation_Index
I don't believe Netfix's reason though, they are a business so only interested in numbers. If they carry adverts then it will be bums on seats, otherwise the number of new customers that will matter.
Originally Posted by Paul_Culloty:
“Despite being a commercial concern, Netflix famously refuse to release viewership figures for their series on the grounds that their revenue is directed towards producing programmes of quality, rather than churning out quantities of dross.”
“Despite being a commercial concern, Netflix famously refuse to release viewership figures for their series on the grounds that their revenue is directed towards producing programmes of quality, rather than churning out quantities of dross.”
And if you believe that you'll be watching Netflix on the moon by the end of next year! They don't release viewing figures because it would scare their accountants to death and the stock prices would plummet. Netflix is vastly over-committed and desperate for subscribers. They can't afford to be picky about what drags people through the door!
Originally Posted by Paul_Culloty:
“Perhaps UK media attention should be similarly focused less on the daily ratings war, but on Audience Appreciation Index scores.”
“Perhaps UK media attention should be similarly focused less on the daily ratings war, but on Audience Appreciation Index scores.”
The BBC will always come out on top, simply because they don't have advertising breaks. Their programmes would have to be much, much, worse (right down to Channel 5 quality) than now before people would be prepared to put up with long breaks during their programmes and start watching the commercial channels in any significant numbers ON A REGULAR BASIS.
(that last phrase was put there for all the people who will now chime in and say "there was a programme on ITV in April 1997 that got more viewers than BBC1 did" - as if single examples disprove a wider point.
Originally Posted by petely:
“The BBC will always come out on top, simply because they don't have advertising breaks. Their programmes would have to be much, much, worse (right down to Channel 5 quality) than now before people would be prepared to put up with long breaks during their programmes and start watching the commercial channels in any significant numbers ON A REGULAR BASIS.
(that last phrase was put there for all the people who will now chime in and say "there was a programme on ITV in April 1997 that got more viewers than BBC1 did" - as if single examples disprove a wider point.”
“The BBC will always come out on top, simply because they don't have advertising breaks. Their programmes would have to be much, much, worse (right down to Channel 5 quality) than now before people would be prepared to put up with long breaks during their programmes and start watching the commercial channels in any significant numbers ON A REGULAR BASIS.
(that last phrase was put there for all the people who will now chime in and say "there was a programme on ITV in April 1997 that got more viewers than BBC1 did" - as if single examples disprove a wider point.
”
There are also enough arguments about accuracy or validity of viewing figures which are relatively easy to measure but I can't imagine anyone believing anyone else's audience appreciation figures.
The 'talent' might not like to read that 90% of people don't like them.
