So you say...but you can't be 100% sure that it doesn't reflect BBC expectations.

I still maintain the article makes for an 'odd' read.

I was saddened by the tone, in truth.

So I raised it here. And this seems to be the appropriate thread for that.

Regards,

Cypher

Yes. And they do. In fact we've seen the sight of BBC journalists giving BBC management a very hard time, on air, when criticism of the BBC's actions or policies has been made.


If there is, it's done very badly or very weakly. I can't think of a single negative BBC news story that hasn't been fully and actively reported on by BBC News. Even ones I don't personally believe to have been fair.

Think about it - if that was the culture, would a news report being negative about Doctor Who's overnights even have been allowed? At least not without details of general ratings success?


BBC News may be editorially independent, but that doesn't mean it can't be guilty of lazy reporting.

Why would you imagine that the BBC would want to have reports putting a negative spin on Doctor Who's performance anyway? It's one of their biggest successes and biggest money-spinners, and if they were unhappy, they'd be more likely to deal with it privately and put a positive spin on things.

Even back in 1985 and 1989 the BBC put a positive spin on their actions regarding the posptonement and cancellation of the programme.


Except that it sets up that they know the show gets good ratings, no matter what the finale got on overnights.

Pretty much, yes-as long as it's seen as unbiased reporting.
That would be promoting bias, which is against the charter BBC news works to.
It was unfortunately worded, but only the interpretation of the news dept, who are probably not big on the complexities of the ratings system-or even that interested.

No - but I can be as certain as it is possible to be based on all the evidence.

Well, I fervently hope that you're right.

Regards,

Cypher

I had misremembered then. Still - can't complain about those stats.

They are about, probably in this thread somewhere. But I am sure the lovely Muttley will dig them up for you if you can't find them.

Yeah agreed - just made my heart flutter, that's all.

I wouldn't worry if it was 'The Daily Star', but the BBC's own website of all places!

Regards,

Cypher

Can you be more specific?

If you mean share of the audience - for the week ending 13 June (the last we have full Doctor Who figures for), BBC One had a 20.6% share of total viewing (20 - 21% is about the BBC One average), while Doctor Who had 30.7% share of viewing for TV originally broadcast during its timeslot.

So far this year Doctor Who has averaged a 37% share (this is likely to go up by the time the full finale figures are available).

I may be wrong, but I don't think the "official" weekly figures for individual shows include the concept of "viewer share", do they? At least, not directly on the BARB website. I don't know if they are available to BARB subscribers though...

K

BARB don't include them in the public releases no, but they are available.

Aah, OK. It will be interesting to see the final compiled stats then.

Tks

K

I do mean share of the audience, yes. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear.

It seems to me that information on the percentage of people watching TV who watched Doctor Who is a relevant factor in considering the ratings over the course of five series/seasons. If the numbers have dropped but the share hasn't, that gives some support to the contention that changing viewing habits are a very important factor in the drop in actual numbers.

Once the final shares are in Series Five is likely to be be about one point down on Series Three and Four. Which is pretty steady, especially allowing for some stronger competition at times this year and the huge growth in iPlayer viewing (which isn't included in the share figure).

Series Two actually had the biggest average share of all five series (again though - there's little in it).

Thank you.

If the iplayer figures are rising in a larger proportion than the share figure is falling, does this indicate that the figures are actually better this year? I'm not a statistician nor a mathematician so I'm not sure if that's a legitimate or justifiable manipulation of the data.

OK, here's a question for our resident ratings gurus!

Do you think the show has shed viewers as we've moved through S5?

From a cursory inspection, there seems to be a bit of a downward trend over the 13 weeks (though I appreciate that we still await the finals for the last 2 eps).

Or is it impossible to tell at this point?

Regards,

Cypher

There are a few reasons for not just "adding the iPlayer views" to the BARB stats:

1 There's no recording of how many viewers were watching at the PC at the same time. With BARB stats, there is.
2 iPlayer viewing stats are, IIUC, not "unique views", so if someone at the same PC decides to view it twice, that gets counted twice.
3 iPlayer stats are not based on a demographic sample, (it's currently based on a 25% sample I think), so having two different "populations" means you shouldn't just "add them together".

I think the "least worst" approach is probably to assume that half the iPlayer views are "first-time, unique".

K

It seems to me to have stayed pretty stable aside from episode 11, which was up against unusually stiff competition on one of the hottest days of the year. Since we don't have final figures for the next two, it's impossible to say anything conclusive, but since episode 12 seems at first glance to have done better than 11, I'd say not.

Have to laugh at this. There is something a bit desperate about someone tying to put a negative spin on a series being rated more excellent than series 2, as excellent as series 3 but slightly less excellent that series 4. I mean it's kind of hard for it to have improved on series 4 for one thing, being it's almost impossible for a show with a sizeable audience to get an AI of over 90 (it was a terrific achievement for series 4 to do this - not that people on this forum appreciated, since many people spent days denying that it meant anything since it didn't jive with their view of the episodes - heck i have a sense of de ja vue there!), so it would be pretty much impossible for this or any other series to go higher!

Time for people to accept that the viewers are enjoying the series pretty much as ever, even if they personally aren't...


I read on GB we aren't likely to get them till next week - maybe even after the finals for The Big Bang.


Two things here:

First of all, we do tend to see a downward turn in viewing figures after the first few episodes as a matter of course. The next two episodes, with finale ratings in, will show an up turn again.

Secondly, yes we have shed SOME viewers this series, as was always going to be the case, and again I said right from before the over nights for the first episode came in I hoped we would match the series average for series 3 (the lowest to date) due to the likely moderate drop off we would see. The loss of DT would make a big difference to some people, the long gap in series (even allowing for specials) would make some lose interest. The fact that it has stayed pretty solid ratings wise is a real positive though.

I think if you look at the drop off from The Beast Below to whatever the final ratings for The Pandorica Opens/The Big Bang you'll get a fairer reflection, because rather like Rose their was a certain amount of curiosity factor about The Eleventh Hour which makes it a slightly invalid point of comparison. I figure it will be something like a million, which is fine really, especially given a lot of that is compensated for in the increased i player views, and gives the show a solid base to move on with.

eta: sorry I have contradicted Tony here, but while I agree he is correct ratings have been quite consistent from the midway point, there has still been a bit of a leak overall, however the ratings this year remain well within the normal parameters we have seen

OK, so around a million-ish down all things considered...but, as Tony points out, that's before we know the finals for eps 12 & 13 for sure.

They *could* have phenomenal timeshifts (3-4m?) that give the tail-end of this season a real boost upwards.

If they don't, then we've ended up with a very S1 pattern - huge start, but with a bit of a tail-off throughout the rest of the season, but hardly in the 'red zone'.

The ratings for the Xmas special this year will be interesting...

Regards,

Cypher

I watch each episode quite a few times on iplayer. Helps to bump up the viewing figures .

Is that same provision made in respect of say the Saturday night showing and the BBC3 repeats?

I don't expect 3-4 million time shift, but could see 2.5 million or so.

My hope for Xmas is they have a really christmas-esque romp planned. It might not go down so well with the fans, but something with a real christmas feel with a big star name could do really well, especially as a contrast to the somewhat gloomy xmas special last year.

You'd have to ask Muttley what approach has been taken up to now wrt "total reach". Up to now, I think the raw numbers have just been added together, which is probably "wrong" when comparing DW to some other show, but probably "good enough" when comparing individual episodes...

K

Done a few quick calculations in relation to the final ratings average for this series.

If the timeshift for last two episodes is on par with the lowest of the series (1.3 million), series average would be 7.65. Unlikely to be this low though.

If timeshift is on par with series average to date (1.7 million), series average would be 7.71.

If timeshift is around the level of the highest to date (2 million), series average would be 7.76.

If timeshift does end up being 2.5 million, series average would be 7.82.

This contrasts with the following series average of past series:

series 1 - 7.95
series 2 - 7.71
series 3 - 7.55
series 4 - 8.05

so there is strong probability this series will average more than series 2 and 3, which would be a good solid result in my view.