Say we're on another reboot in 30 years time... it'll be more critically beloved episodes like Listen and Heaven Sent that new fans will want to watch to see what the show used to be like, rather than the more commercially successful ones such as The Husbands of River Song. Just like how new fans today go back and watch episodes that people cherish rather than episodes that did spectacularly well in ratings and AI and such. They watch stories like The War Games rather than stories like The Creature from the Pit.

For me, it was the way Holmes dealt with the consequences of the Doctor's reckless wandering by showing him and Peri in an event that was far from the adventurous fantasy he was used to and putting them in a situation that became increasingly more perilous for them and showing the Doctor at his most vulnerable rather than the somewhat untouchable figure he usually was. Holmes' riveting script and Graeme Harper's fantastic directing really put us through the strain and torture the Doctor was putting himself through just the save the life of a woman he barely knew, which was a big contrast to Pertwee and Tom Baker's Doctors going out saving the universe. Christopher Gable was also outstanding as Sharaz Jek and I felt he was to Davison's Doctor what Michael Wisher's Davros was to Tom Baker's Doctor. Personally I find it a mark of Robert Holmes' outstanding writing talent that he took my least favourite classic Doctor and one of my least favourite companions and created one of my favourite Doctor Who stories of all time.

I've never worked in it directly but some of my colleagues work with this aspect of media a lot, and they're endlessly fascinated by the massive chess-game of broadcasting rights - ultimately what they say boils down to speculation but it's often fairly well informed.

I used to presume a show that was removed clearly wasn't profitable to them any more, but it was a far more complex picture and suspect with a show like Doctor Who it also is as well.

- The worst case scenario, and one I don't buy into myself, is that the show simply isn't successful enough for them any more. It's one option as to why a show is removed, but if viewership wasn't worth the cost of the streaming rights then they'd remove it from their service, just as any broadcaster will pull the plug on non-profitable shows.

- Another reason they may pull the plug is due to rival services, more specifically rival services that may be a more affordable option to consumers. If another service is offering Doctor Who for a lower price or with more recent episodes, then Netflix may for now remove the show entirely. It's better business to just temporarily remove the show altogether than to try and outbid rival services when consumers all pay a consistent subscription fee. They'll currently invest in other shows that are a more unique catch, and may very well pay even more to bring the show back later on to their services. Bringing it back after an absence drums up more promotion than it always having been there does, and combined with the 'unique catch' shows they've accumulated during its absence, Netflix suddenly looks like the best option to consumers - even if other platforms have had Doctor Who all this time.

- Promotion is a two-way street as well. The BBC had limited ability to advertise its shows, but services like Netflix get promoted worldwide across countless broadcasting channels as well as the internet itself, and if the show is really relevant and popular it bodes well for Netflix to wear it like a jewel in the crown. The thing is though that there is no series of Doctor Who in 2016. And so whilst logically it's the perfect time for newcomers to marathon the show ahead of Series 10 in 2017, it would ironically be the worst time for Netflix to be promoting the show on their service - as it stands to make them look kind of irrelevant. With the show less promotable in the wake of the gap, the BBC is also then less inclined to pay streaming services a large sum of money to keep the show available on those services - for now. Neither the BBC or Netflix stand to get a lot from it. With Doctor Who not being tied down to any particular streaming service, there's no need to fight to keep the brand as it can always be haggled over at a future point. This means Netflix and the BBC both have confidence in their brands, but beyond that it ultimately leads to little but speculation and tells us very little.

I think there' a bit of a reality gap between an episode satisfying a portion of the viewers who are still watching, and being good enough to attract new viewers. Just because they're in the same demographic, doesn't mean they like the same TV.

Looks like it might soon be disappearing from UK Netflix too:

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-...how-on-netflix

I can't help thinking that it might have something to do with no new series being broadcast this year, what with the timing, or maybe it's just a coincidence...

Yes, Androzani really stands out as a classic, especially when compared with the rest of the post Tom Baker output...

Thank you Abomination - some really interesting insights there.

It's interesting what you say about the possible impact of there being no new series in 2016. I noticed quite a few people on Twitter have mentioned that a gap year isn't a clever move for an international show.

Possibly relevant. Unlike myself this year.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...iption-service

I read a really lovely piece about the 5th Doctor years ago, possibly in Doctor Who magazine, which said that where as the 4th died saving all of creation it was right for the more human 5th Doctor to sacrifice himself to save a single person. That was a nice way for Davison to leave the show.

I guess the question is what makes a "Doctor Who classic". I guess, for me, there's a big difference between fan classic and a viewer classic.

Caves is never a story I hear other people reference or even indicate they remember. Not in the way (for Davison) a story like Earthshock seems to be easily recalled ("You know, the one with the Cybermen where Adric died").

And for me, that's where Heaven Sent sits too. I think many fans will call it a classic and reference it for years to come. But I just don't think its memorable for viewers more generally or (indeed) even particularly liked.

Have read on digital spy today that Hell Bent had 1.2 million I - player requests.

Anyone know whether and how this is integrated into viewing figures and ... Is it a good figure?!

Thanks

The Beeb's iPlayer figures? Not at all.

BARB had it sitting at around 350-400k by the time it vanished off the TV Player Report - wedged behind The Not-Apprentice and ahead of EastEndies at the top of the four-week chart.

Aw, c'mon, CD93. You are more than the relayer of DW viewing figures!

Indeed. Those spoilers don't write themselves, for a start!

Thank you.

Is there a way of estimating -even if roughly - a total of unique viewers of an episode including (different?) I player figures? And to make a judgement about what this means for how total number of viewers may have changed over the years ?

Sorry if this well trodden ground, I am catching up with the viewing figures issue ...thanks ...

As a generalization, you can use this graph to see how catch-up viewing has evolved across the board since Who returned - and the show has largely rode the wave of that.

The BBC occasionally releases Live+7 data for public consumption, but unfortunately it's too patchy to make an assessment on how things have changed. Though we have breakdowns for S8 and the first half of S9 which you may find interesting (or not).

Thank you. That is very interesting. And how does, very roughly, an average of 7m viewers compare to the first few seasons of New Who ?

From chatting to friends ( very rigorous !) most " casual" viewers might say 2007** and 2008 *were the best seasons (shoot me down)! But what do the viewing figures say ?

My small sample of casual Whovians say

** epic storylines eg the regenerated master, great one off stories eg family of blood, Blink
*and the generally strong acting and rapport that tenant and Tate had, and the nail biting and very emotional run of episodes starting with Turn Left.

This is no comment positive or negative on series 9 and its ratings..

People say that the way they record ratings is sound, using statistics and all that, but with the recent Deadpool film coming out and its predicted box office takings being well short of its actual takings I wonder the accuracy of Ratings using the method that they use, the box office predictions has a similar set up that they use to get TV ratings I.E. using a small sample then multiplying to apply that for the wider nation. It said that Deadpool would get around 70 to 80 million, and yet the film made 132 million, showing that the system they used was way off.

So does this apply to the way we get ratings, please point me out if it doesn't and I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the way they get ratings is flimsy, its always has been to me but these Deadpool figures being so out made me think of it again. Apply what a small section watch and saying that's what the wider nation would of done, give or take, seems rather in-accurate, I mean you could just happen to have people who don't like sci fi (generally) or have people who are more likely to watch bbc than itv and so forth, how is it accurate to multiply a small group to assume that's what everyone else did... that just doesn't work as these deadpool figures showed which used that multiplying statistic thing.

Thoughts.

I agree with this personally. Series 3 has what I consider the best half-series of Doctor Who out there. The run of the final half of the Series with Human Nature/Family of Blood, then Blink and then The Utopia Trilogy is just absolutely amazing. Also, Series 4 is great as well, especially the last three episodes including the phenomenal Turn Left. (And, as a side note, we had Torchwood, The Sarah Jane Adventures and even some animated episodes all going at the same time.) It truly was a golden era for 21st Century Doctor Who.

The BARB average ratings for the first eight series were within 1m of eachother, which was a very impressive nine years of consistency. Series 4 remains the only series to see an increase on the previous year.

Does anyone know how BBC Three is going to work now its entirely online? Is it going to become the BBC's equivalent of Netflix, with original content uploaded as an entire season, rather than one at a time?

Thank you.

You probably all know this but information about iPlayer viewing figures:

A request is "a successful request to stream or download a programme" so does not equate to number of viewers.

Published iPlayer figures include requests via connected TV devices. BARB is also used to track online viewing. BARB measures iPlayer viewing through a TV set, so there is overlap in what's measured - though BARB aren't using request data but measuring durations via their panel.

So a million iPlayer views does not necessarily mean a million viewers (which I think is what you are all saying).

The second section is interesting: does this mean iPlayer viewing is included within the BARB viewing figures? Likewise, does it mean iPlayer requests includes people already counted as TV viewers?

On-Demand through the TV has been included.

The purpose of the TV Player Report has been to expand this to mobile (laptop/phone/etc) viewing which will, off in to the future, be included in consolidated figures.

http://www.barb.co.uk/tv-player-repo...20telling%20me

I do find it all terribly confusing but then, I guess, TV viewing itself is complicated nowadays.

Some interesting information from the BBC Media Centre about overseas sales:

• Keeping Up Appearances is most often bought show of last 40 years according to new data released to celebrate four decades of BBC Worldwide Showcase
• Sir David Attenborough’s Life of Mammals next most widely bought in last 40 years
• Christopher Eccleston’s Doctor Who most often bought drama series of last 4 decades


It goes on to say: "The most purchased drama series is Doctor Who Series 1, starring Christopher Eccleston as the ninth Doctor and first broadcast in 2005, which has attracted buyers 629 from countries including Bahrain, Hong Kong, France and Chile. Doctor Who was one of the titles screened to buyers at the very first Showcase in 1976 and the USA was the first country to license the show in 1978."

I guess, for Doctor Who, it makes sense that Season 1 would be the most successful - countries wanting to buy Doctor Who would start with Season 1.