Indeed, this article mentions that there were only two new broadcasts in the U.S. on Christmas Day, and the winner scored 11 million viewers, despite the U.S. having a much larger population. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/ustv/a82...y-ratings.html
Doctor Who Christmas Special does a Rating of 12.24m
3 of 3
Isn't it the case though, that the cultural attitude towards Xmas day TV is completely different in America? I believe that most Americans go out to local events or take part in family activities on Xmas day and don't bother watching telly at all. Hence the listings are full of repeats because the schedulers know that nobody's watching.
Originally Posted by Dr Thete:
“Just a quick correction but the AI figure isn't actually a percentage.
Each member of the panel providing the AI figure give the programme a score out of ten. From these scores an average mark out of ten is obtained - which is then multiplied by ten to give the AI figure.
To put it simply - the average score given to VotD by all AI panel members was 8.6/10 - or 86/100.”
“Just a quick correction but the AI figure isn't actually a percentage.
Each member of the panel providing the AI figure give the programme a score out of ten. From these scores an average mark out of ten is obtained - which is then multiplied by ten to give the AI figure.
To put it simply - the average score given to VotD by all AI panel members was 8.6/10 - or 86/100.”
Although you're right, rawly isn't completely wrong.
The AI of 86 is equivalent to 86 people out of 100 giving the show 10/10, and the rest giving it 0/10. Of course in reality the figures are completely different but in some kind of statistical sense you could certainly argue that 86% of people think it's excellent.
Originally Posted by alexjones50:
“the reason it got such good rating was because everything else on at the time was crap. they were lucky ITV decided not not to run corrie agasint it (not that I like that stupid show, but you can't deny is popualrity) otherwise doctot who's ratigns woudl have been a bit lower.”
“the reason it got such good rating was because everything else on at the time was crap. they were lucky ITV decided not not to run corrie agasint it (not that I like that stupid show, but you can't deny is popualrity) otherwise doctot who's ratigns woudl have been a bit lower.”
Would they though? Corrie was only 500,000 ahead of SCD and that wasn't nearly as heavily promoted as Doctor Who.
Originally Posted by The Slug:
“Although you're right, rawly isn't completely wrong.
The AI of 86 is equivalent to 86 people out of 100 giving the show 10/10, and the rest giving it 0/10. Of course in reality the figures are completely different but in some kind of statistical sense you could certainly argue that 86% of people think it's excellent.”
“Although you're right, rawly isn't completely wrong.
The AI of 86 is equivalent to 86 people out of 100 giving the show 10/10, and the rest giving it 0/10. Of course in reality the figures are completely different but in some kind of statistical sense you could certainly argue that 86% of people think it's excellent.”
That would actually mean that 86% of people thought it was just about perfect and 14% of people didn't even give it a rating (which can't happen - 1 is the lowest score). In reality a substantial cluster of people need to have voted 7, 8, 9 or 10/10 - with a tendency towards 9 or 10/10. Scores of 6 or less out of 10 are relatively uncommon. For obvious reasons - as people tend to *actively* watch (passive viewers, i.e. those who just had any old junk on, would be unlikely to give AI feedback) programmes they at least expect to enjoy to some degree.
So you could say that a clear majority thought it worth a rating of 7 - 10/10 - which *could* mean that 86% of people gave it a rating of 8.5/10 or above (an AI of 85 marking the accepted 'excellent' barrier). Of course if *all* the scores were 8/10 or higher it *could* be that 100% of people thought it very good or better.
It is laugable isnt it.
If the ratings were lower than last years it would have been because Dr Who has run out of steam, RTD has finaly got what he wanted and killed the show
But because the ratings have been the best since 1979 (?) it is of course because there was nothing else on.
You have to laugh at the sheer desperation of some members here.
If the ratings were lower than last years it would have been because Dr Who has run out of steam, RTD has finaly got what he wanted and killed the show
But because the ratings have been the best since 1979 (?) it is of course because there was nothing else on.
You have to laugh at the sheer desperation of some members here.
Originally Posted by Dr Thete:
“That would actually mean that 86% of people thought it was just about perfect and 14% of people didn't even give it a rating (which can't happen - 1 is the lowest score). In reality a substantial cluster of people need to have voted 7, 8, 9 or 10/10 - with a tendency towards 9 or 10/10. Scores of 6 or less out of 10 are relatively uncommon. For obvious reasons - as people tend to *actively* watch (passive viewers, i.e. those who just had any old junk on, would be unlikely to give AI feedback) programmes they at least expect to enjoy to some degree.
So you could say that a clear majority thought it worth a rating of 7 - 10/10 - which *could* mean that 86% of people gave it a rating of 8.5/10 or above (an AI of 85 marking the accepted 'excellent' barrier). Of course if *all* the scores were 8/10 or higher it *could* be that 100% of people thought it very good or better.”
“That would actually mean that 86% of people thought it was just about perfect and 14% of people didn't even give it a rating (which can't happen - 1 is the lowest score). In reality a substantial cluster of people need to have voted 7, 8, 9 or 10/10 - with a tendency towards 9 or 10/10. Scores of 6 or less out of 10 are relatively uncommon. For obvious reasons - as people tend to *actively* watch (passive viewers, i.e. those who just had any old junk on, would be unlikely to give AI feedback) programmes they at least expect to enjoy to some degree.
So you could say that a clear majority thought it worth a rating of 7 - 10/10 - which *could* mean that 86% of people gave it a rating of 8.5/10 or above (an AI of 85 marking the accepted 'excellent' barrier). Of course if *all* the scores were 8/10 or higher it *could* be that 100% of people thought it very good or better.”
Isn't that what I said?
Originally Posted by Mansun:
“I believe that most Americans go out to local events or take part in family activities on Xmas day and don't bother watching telly at all. Hence the listings are full of repeats because the schedulers know that nobody's watching.”
“I believe that most Americans go out to local events or take part in family activities on Xmas day and don't bother watching telly at all. Hence the listings are full of repeats because the schedulers know that nobody's watching.”
Well perhaps they don't watch telly because nothing's on. I'm 49 years old and don't remember there ever having been anything on on Xmas day.
It's a huge day for movies though.
Originally Posted by NewbieCanuck:
“Anyone who thinks British telly is bad on Christmas Day should be sentenced to spend Christmas in North America, where the only new show is the Queen's message (and the Americans don't even get that!)”
“Anyone who thinks British telly is bad on Christmas Day should be sentenced to spend Christmas in North America, where the only new show is the Queen's message (and the Americans don't even get that!)”
I can believe that, I was there 3 years and the only new programme on Christmas Day was Deal or No Deal on NBC. *shudders*
3 of 3
