Yes. But, as some context, the previous lowest rating was set during Series 2, was only 0.37m higher (6.08m), and was pre iPlayer.

And 5.71m is still, for drama in general, a very good figure.

This is what ha happens when the overnight casual audience are busy elsewhere.

I had wondered. Well there's no danger of Rugby League having much effect on the overnights!
Andy Farrell is an England coach, fat lot of good that's done us... (very off topic)

Back on topic, 5.71 is a disappointing figure, there's no getting around it.

I do recall Moff saying previously when he was a bit anti two-parters, that there usually was a drop off in the second part, and clearly many people didn't bother watching the second part.

Ouch!

To be fair, I think its more that there is a drop-off from the season premiere to episode 2 regardless of whether or not its a two-parter.

It's not the case at all. Two parters have seen rises for part two, and falls.

There's at least one case of a dramatic rise, and one of a dramatic fall. In each case, however, there was a compelling live event that for one heavily boosted an episode's casual audience, and for the other heavily depleted it.

But, for that fairly substantial component of audience, having missed a first part, or missing a second, doesn't seem to be the issue you think it would be!

That "part two of a two part story always gets lower figures than part one and therefore two part stories are to be avoided" is standard industry "wisdom". People who missed part one are less likely to tune in for part two, despite the "Previously on..." recap.

I think that's beginning to be outdated thinking. The part two effect must be much lower these days since PVRs and catch-up services make it much easier to avoid missing part one.

Also, if you end on a good enough cliff hanger, you will get back those watched part one to see the resolution in part two.

And there's the rise of the short, but multi-part, dramas to consider.

Maybe, though this is what Moff said back in 2011 between S6 and S7

I agree with this, my kids no longer watch it live and watch on catch up (or sometimes not at all) if it was on earlier then I'm sure like other people we watch as a family.
Should be on at NLT 7pm IMO. But seems to be pushed later & later. With Tennants fan base & appeal it may have fared better with the time shift but although PC is a fantastic Dr he wont bring in the casual fans like Tennant did.

Chances are this week's will end up about the same final figure too. That puts the series average of 6.03m which is certainly a big drop on previous series (the last three have all been within touching distance of each other - dropped by 0.1-0.2 every year between s5-8. This would be a drop of 1.2m so far).

It's not so much of an issue if consolidated viewing figures recover to the late 6m area after the rugby is all done. It is more of an issue if they don't bounce back up - that makes it seem more like people have fallen out of the habit of watching DW and didn't feel the need to come back.


That is FAR too early. Many people aren't even in from shopping etc then.


No they didn't. Strictly has been around longer than the revived DW series and has been on in the Autumn since 2004. As has been said many times, Strictly is restricted to when it airs due to the live nature of the show and the length of the recording for the results. Everything has to be scheduled around it (as Robin Hood, Merlin and Atlantis were - Merlin particularly never had any issues with the time changes or the slot).

I know he said it, but he was wrong. For 9 out of the 18 two-parters (treating TSoD/TotTL as one) up until the end of Series 6, the second part rated more than the first.

Only 1 out of the 5 Moffat era ones had by that point, but that doesn't take into account the fact that of the other four, one was a second episode, behaving just as second episodes generally do, and another was technically a fall but by just 0.1m on overnights, and 0.09 in final ratings. Virtually margin of error territory.

And for AI figures - 10 were actually up, 4 the same, and only 4 down (but only by 1 point). For just the Moffat era to that point it was 3 down (by just 1 point), and 2 up.

I'm sure his perception was as he described, it's just his perception was wrong.

I can't speak as to the level of press coverage or episode costs.

Really miss Merlin, think it proved strictly and even X Factor (which was way bigger back then) didn't have to impact greatly.

To be fair, I'm not bothering to catch up until later. Also, given more people watch later on/online, maybe they could rethink they're marketing strategy? I don't know quite how, or what the tv was like but this series felt like it came from nowhere.

So how come Dr Who was on earlier last series?What has taken its place,if not Strictly?

It started earlier in the year last series (August 23rd rather than 19th Sept) so the first few episodes aired before Strictly started.

Later eps were on just as late (even a bit later) as they are this year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006...dcasts/2014/10

Kill the Moon - 20:30
Mummy on the OE - 20:35
Flatline 20:25

etc.

Under the Lake

Live: 2.987m
Live + VOSDAL: 3.738m
+ Day 1: 4.751m
+ Day 2: 5.023m

The final season of Star Trek: Enterprise had many two and three part stories. This allowed them to spread the costs of new, story-specific sets and props across 2 or 3 episodes. As well as cost saving, the multi-part stories allowed them to tell the sort of stories the fans would love to see,

So we're about the same week-on-week. I think the show is settling into the same weekly ratings. I think we may get a post-Rugby bump but even if we don't these really aren't appalling figures.

It might give the production team some food for thought as to whether the show needs to be freshened up (and simply resting it for a couple of years does not count).

Alternatively, it might give the BBC something to think about in terms of scheduling.

The ratings in themselves aren't dire but there's been a pretty large seasonal drop since last years series (so far). I agree, it's too early to make too many judgments and a post-rugby bounce could still happen. If it doesn't then I'm sure the concern won't be 5.7million viewers but the 1.3 million average viewers lost since last year. The questions will be "why are those viewers no longer watching?" and "how do we recover that audience?" rather than "should we cancel the show?". But let's see how things progress over the next few weeks.

Scheduling is not the magic beans though (imo). Doctor Who was up against X-Factor last year, Ant and Dec a few years back and it performed perfectly fine.

Absolutely this. I've seen a few people who think that lower ratings for one series will mean the BBC are going to bring down the axe. This is utterly ludicrous. If Series 9 performs badly, the BBC will be asking themselves what went wrong and trying to figure out what they can do to solve the problem. They are not going to "oh dear, it would seem that Series 9 had significantly lower ratings than the year before... time to axe the show!"

In order to understand the drop in viewers from S8, maybe we need to work out what attracts casual viewers.

I wonder if TMA/TWF was the wrong sort of story to start the series with, to catch casual viewers, being wrapped up in Doctor folklore, Daleks etc. From the trailers it looked intriguing, but not spectacular, did it catch the general public's imagination ?

Also, it's possible that casual viewers prefer single parters?

The thing is, the biggest drop didn't happen after Episode 1, it happened before. Episode 1 itself had a significantly lower viewing figure than usual which would suggest that more people than usual didn't tune in at all. This suggests to me that Series 9 itself cannot be at fault. How could it be if most of the missing viewers haven't seen any of it?

I suspect a lot of the drop-off was due to the rugby and we'll see if I'm correct in thinking this if the ratings recover slightly once the rugby ends.
But if I'm wrong then the reason fewer casual viewers are watching probably lies with the end of series 8/The Christmas Special rather than Series 9.

I think the rugby probably accounts for much of the drop, but it's also worth noting that viewing figures can be a delayed reaction to viewers being "burned" by a bad previous episode or series. So it's also possible that some of the drop may be coming from people who really didn't like Season 8 deciding not to bother with season 9.

I guess we'll learn more as the figures come in for the rest of series.

[Edit: Basically, what TheSilentFez said! ]

But people have an indication of what the new series is like from the trailer, and maybe the thought of the Daleks again and the 'boy' didn't appeal?

The consumer surveys are becoming increasingly relevant.

Question 1:

Big drop for Episode 3 on BBC America this week, 0.987m (0.3) compared with 1.14m (0.4) for Episode 3 last year. The figures may have been dented by HBO's showing of American Sniper although last year's was up against Attack on Titan.

Dr Who is repeated many times throughout the week on BBC America so the final total may not be so different from last year.