They're wrong. It came second to the football which got 5.7 million.

Once the final figures come in though it will almost certainly be top 10, and stands a decent chance at being top 5, for the week. Despite all the football and soaps.

How do you know?

I accept that the BBC is a large organisation, and the views of one division might not reflect the views of another.

But that's only a 'might not', not a 'definitely does not'.

It just seemed such a bizarre thing for them to release. Press releases like that are supposed to be sanctioned aren't they?

Regards,

Cypher

Viewing figures for England's world cup match against Germany would be expected to be high. This was a one off event involving the nation's favourite sport. Even I watched.

The England game was Sunday; DW was Saturday.

Regards,

Cypher

Looks like a further delay to the officials for TPO. The only stat so far is the BBCHD one of 635k...

K

Also:


If Mark Thompson went rampaging down to BBC Wales screaming about the viewing figures and demanding explanations, I don't think anyone at BBC Wales would be laughing.

And bosses do that sort of thing if their expectations are not met by people they're paying to make good on them.

Now, I'm not saying that has happened, but we don't *really* know what BBC top brass expectations were.

We can only guess based upon what we think are reasonable *as fans*. But reality is often much harsher.

Regards,

Cypher

How do I know?

Because that's the way the BBC is formally structured. Thus you will see BBC News critically examining the BBC, reporting neutrally on its activities, and not automatically towing any line presented in a press release.


This is a cast iron fact, BBC News is required to be editorially independent. It's set up that way. It's far more than a difference in views between divisions. It's even enshrined in the BBC guidelines


It wasn't a press release. It was a BBC News report. Just as when you watch BBC News on TV, those reports aren't press releases either.

Yes, I understand that. But that wasn't my point.

My point was that it doesn't follow that BBC top brass were happy with the finale's performance, just because a negative news report was put out by another wing of the organisation.

So my question is: how do you know that BBC management were happy?

Or have I misunderstood, and you weren't claiming that?

Cos' I don't see how we can honestly say we would know.

Regards,

Cypher

Likewise if he turned green, grew a few feet and started bellowing 'Thompson Smash'. Which is, frankly, about as likely to happen.

The ratings are excellent, and Doctor Who is outperforming every non-soap drama (and, sometimes, even outperforming the soaps).

What's he going to be angry about? That on a hot summers day the Doctor Who overnights only made it the most watched BBC programme of the day and second most watched programmes overall? That in a week full of soaps and World Cup football, on overnights alone it still managed to be in the top 20 for the week? That it is outperfoming everything on iPlayer and getting huge timeshifts? That last week it got the biggest BBC HD figure ever?


Well, ok, if he's a complete dick and has absurdly silly expectations then he'll be unhappy. But that's a huge 'if'.


We know what they are officially, yes. Because they are recorded in a set of official documents and reported on annually. And Doctor Who is meeting them.

I know that but the article was using the figure of 13.5m viewers as a yardstick. My point is that this isn't a reasonable event with which to compare the relatively low viewing figures for Dr Who (affected by other factors). Even people like me, who never watch football, will have watched that match. I'm surprised the figures weren't even higher.

Yes it was. You asked me how I know the BBC is editorially independent. I pointed out that it is set up that way. Your point was very clear.


That is not remotely the point you made. Now you have made it though - I didn't argue anything like that. It would be a silly thing to argue. I made the point that a news report by BBC News isn't reflective of what BBC management think.


I don't - but based on the evidence I can't see any reason for them to be otherwise. You don't generally get unhappy at success.


I don't begin to see how you managed to connect my pointing out the independence of BBC News to anything I've said about reasons for the BBC to be happy. I didn't connect them, I simply made the point that they don't relate to each other, that a BBC News report is neither a press release nor a sign of BBC management unhappiness.

On the subject of what BBC management think of Doctor Who this year and its ratings - extracts from the Doctor Who News page report on 'The Pandorica Opens' screening at BAFTA:



http://gallifreynewsbase.blogspot.co...screening.html

As someone who often uses iplayer, i can confirm that Dr Who has been the most watched programme throughout the series and often throughout the week following the episode's first showing. As you say, it outperforms everything else, including Eastenders.

Again, this is stuff we might be proud of *as fans*, but the BBC might take a different view. They might agree that those things are good, but they might have expected more.


Well, I didn't want to use the word 'dick', but, yes, bosses can be dicks, they can have their own set of expectations, and they can and do go on the rampage if those expectations aren't met.

I see it every day.

And the BBC has never been in any shortage of 'dicks' who have made fan-unpopular decisions concerning the show in the past, which range from re-grounding the show, to adding more humour, to cutting down the violence, to resting it, and to cancelling it altogether.

Obviously, I don't think the latter two are very likely, just illustrative, as no fan thought those were reasonable either. But they happened.


What was the expectation for the Doctor Who finale?

Regards,

Cypher

Doctor Who took the top four places in the iPlayer chart for April

No, let's rewind a second, as I think things have got muddled.

I started by saying that it seems like the BBC were disappointed with the finale performance - indicating the news report.

You said 'not remotely'.

So, I asked - how do you know? (...that the BBC was not remotely disappointed).

Can we go from there?

Regards,

Cypher

And May.

K

What is the point of speculation based solely on the premise that BBC management might have had impossible expectations and be completely unaware of how TV viewing has changed and is recorded?


And?


The same expectation that the BBC always has - that it did well in the ratings (and that's not just overnights), that it was enjoyed by those who watched it, that it got the wide auidence demographic it is designed for, that it helped meet the BBCs aims regarding new ways of viewing, that it held up well in difficult circumstances etc.

What expectations should the BBC have?

My 'not remotely' was simply pointing out that a BBC News report is not an indication of BBC management views. I didn't say I know the BBC are not disappointed (though, as I've pointed out, they've got no grounds to be disappointed), just that we don't have any evidence or reason to believe that they are.

Remember - these are the same people who created BBC HD, who set up iPlayer, who continually talk about reach and share in official reports, and who know what figures constitute success in today's TV environment. They aren't fans, prone to panic at lower overnights or fluctuations in the casual audience, they're the people who know how TV works and created the strategies that led to increased audience fragmentation.

Take a look at my earlier post referencing what BBC managers have actually expressed on this.

I think it was top 5 even for May, wasn't it? But I've misplaced the figures, so I was reluctant to mention them.

I was wondering about the news report...

Regards,

Cypher

OK fair enough...

Are the BBC News Reports *really* free to say whatever they like about the BBC?

There's no cross-organisational checking, censorship, tone-setting at all?

Because, to my mind, the article seems to go out of its way to put a negative spin on the show's performance by quoting past triumphs directly alongside...almost inviting the reader to conclude 'my, haven't the figures dropped - the show's clearly in decline.'

And I still think that's odd.


I did - they're nothing to do with the finale viewing figures, which was the only thing I was wondering about.

Regards,

Cypher

Excuse me for interrupting the current debate but is there anywhere that sets out Doctor Who ratings expressed as a percentage of market share?

Why? It is the work of a BBC News journalist reporting on TV ratings, it is not a press release, it is not based on, nor does it quote, a press release, and has nothing to do with BBC expectations.

Ep 9 hadn't been shown for the full week, so it wasn't included in May's figures.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...k_may_2010.pdf

K