If you were to embark on a race to the South Pole, in a team of three which included Olympic medal-winner James Cracknell who would suffer frost-bite and worse during the course of the race, you might expect to do rather well with the television programme about your adventure. But would you want it showing while the country was on its summer holiday?
The final part of On Thin Ice, on BBC2 Sunday 9pm, had an audience of 3.3 million/14% share, better than ITV1’s Whatever It Takes and Channel 4’s Big Brother. It was helped by the ever-popular Top Gear, but even so, it must be seen as a successful project.
Clearly the three men who undertook the challenge felt it was a success – and watching as finally dragged themselves to the South Pole, it was impossible not to appreciate the physical endurance it took for them to achieve this. But what was the programme doing in the schedule for the last Sunday night in July?
I’m still trying to figure out exactly what is going on with the two main BBC channels this summer. A couple of weeks ago BBC1 fast-burned five episodes of Torchwood in a single week. Last week's BBC2 schedules also featured the start of a lavish costume drama, Desperate Romantics – on Tuesday at 9pm, with 2.5 million/11% share. It in turn was following the new series of Coast - the coast of France, to be specific - which had 3.1 million/14% share.
Good for BBC2, you might say, but on reflection we might wonder whether these big projects shouldn't be unveiled during the darker nights when there would be more people to view. Perhaps there might be a concern that the autumn and winter brings increased competition from commercial networks, so gather the ratings now while the goings’ good. Besides 3 million is a good audience at any time of year.
So this is not a moan about the programmes on BBC2. Just a query about the rate at which it is using up its stock of quality shows. Is there a sense that it is behaving a bit like a council which engages in a lot of essential road-repairs in order to spend its budget before the year-end. OK, so On Thin Ice, Desperate Romantics and Coast are not exactly the same as pothole filling - but you get my point I hope.
Whatever the reason, I know that if I’d got frost-bite in order to make a TV show, I’d be a bit miffed that it was shown during the summer holidays.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Should we worry about BBC1's Drama Giants?
Drama might seem like a luxury in the current climate – so how should we describe a lot of drama? In recent weeks on BBC1 we have had five consecutive nights of Torchwood and three nights of Occupation. The former fared better, in audience terms, with an average of 6.4 million/27% share, compared with 4 million/17% share for the Iraq drama.
That’s a lot of drama by anyone’s standard. Torchwood was remarkably consistent, even if the climax of the week fell short of the penultimate episode – there were 6.7 million, vs 6.5 million. Each night Torchwood saw off ITV1’s offering – Hannah’s Killer, Ladette to Lady, Trial and Retribution (twice) and Doc Martin.
You could say that the BBC got its scheduling strategy absolutely right, taking advantage of a make-weight ITV1 summer schedule to ensure maximum ratings for an important drama. It also took advantage of the weakness of Big Brother on Channel 4.
But there is a question about Torchwood which is difficult to answer – why strip it across five nights in the middle of July? One answer is in the primetime share figures – 24% Monday vs 26% ITV1, 22% vs 14% Tuesday, 23% vs 24% Wednesday, 27% vs 17% on Thursday and 25% vs 23% on Friday. Three out of five wins, and two narrow losses – highly competitive.
Torchwood was also assisted by the final for Celebrity MasterChef starting on Wednesday onBBc1 it was 4.8 million/23% share, Thursday 5.6 million/26% and Friday 4.7 million/21% share. Those figures assisted Torchwood and contributed to BBC1’s strong week. Isn’t that what BBC1 should be doing – competing in a robust fashion with its commercial rival?
But I wonder whether the success in July of Torchwood – and Celebrity Masterchef for that matter – does not raise a question about BBC1’s attitude towards competition. It was able to strip an original drama across five nights in July because it wanted to – no commercial broadcaster could afford the luxury. And it has been able to develop Torchwood from its origins on a digital channel, through its second terrestrial channel, and into primetime on its general entertainment channel – again no terrestrial or digital channel has the option.
For fans of Torchwood, the reaction is probably so what – they’re delighted by the programme’s success. But for those who watch the ecology of broadcasting, there’s a clear warning of how broadcasting’s ecology is changing.
This fact was underlined for me by a speech made by Channel 4’s Julian Bellamy at last week’s Televisual Intelligent Factual conference. Bellamy looked at the week which I had thought of as Torchwood week, from the perspective of Channel 4’s factual output.
On Monday at 9pm Channel 4 had Inside Nature’s Giants – the second in a series of animal autopsies, with 1.7 million/7.5% share. Clearly regarded as ground-breaking natural history programming, this show was presented as Channel 4 doing what it does best. Earlier on Monday, he cited Teenagers Fighting Cancer at 8pm, with 890,000/4% share, and on Wednesday at 8pm Channel 4 had Embarassing Teenage Bodies with 1.8 million/9% share. On Thursday at 9pm Gerry’s Big Decision – a factual business programme – had 1.7 million/7% share.
Clearly Inside Nature’s Giants is Channel 4’s big project in this week – but consider it in comparison to the riches required to fund Torchwood across five nights. I’m not suggesting that Channel 4 should be competing with BBC1, but the gap in terms of resources is striking. You’ll notice that I have made no reference to ITV1 – traditionally the commercial competitor for BBC1 – it simply wasn’t at the races during this particular week.
So what’s going on? There was no competitive imperative which required BBC1 to blast all the commercial opposition with a five night drama. Perhaps these mega-projects are conceived with a different audience in mind – the international sales audience. Something that does as well as Torchwood is bound to have value in the international market. A format like Masterchef is as much a commercial proposition as a domestic programme. BBC1 might not carry advertising – but it is generating a lot of popular programming which has considerable commercial value.
That’s a lot of drama by anyone’s standard. Torchwood was remarkably consistent, even if the climax of the week fell short of the penultimate episode – there were 6.7 million, vs 6.5 million. Each night Torchwood saw off ITV1’s offering – Hannah’s Killer, Ladette to Lady, Trial and Retribution (twice) and Doc Martin.
You could say that the BBC got its scheduling strategy absolutely right, taking advantage of a make-weight ITV1 summer schedule to ensure maximum ratings for an important drama. It also took advantage of the weakness of Big Brother on Channel 4.
But there is a question about Torchwood which is difficult to answer – why strip it across five nights in the middle of July? One answer is in the primetime share figures – 24% Monday vs 26% ITV1, 22% vs 14% Tuesday, 23% vs 24% Wednesday, 27% vs 17% on Thursday and 25% vs 23% on Friday. Three out of five wins, and two narrow losses – highly competitive.
Torchwood was also assisted by the final for Celebrity MasterChef starting on Wednesday onBBc1 it was 4.8 million/23% share, Thursday 5.6 million/26% and Friday 4.7 million/21% share. Those figures assisted Torchwood and contributed to BBC1’s strong week. Isn’t that what BBC1 should be doing – competing in a robust fashion with its commercial rival?
But I wonder whether the success in July of Torchwood – and Celebrity Masterchef for that matter – does not raise a question about BBC1’s attitude towards competition. It was able to strip an original drama across five nights in July because it wanted to – no commercial broadcaster could afford the luxury. And it has been able to develop Torchwood from its origins on a digital channel, through its second terrestrial channel, and into primetime on its general entertainment channel – again no terrestrial or digital channel has the option.
For fans of Torchwood, the reaction is probably so what – they’re delighted by the programme’s success. But for those who watch the ecology of broadcasting, there’s a clear warning of how broadcasting’s ecology is changing.
This fact was underlined for me by a speech made by Channel 4’s Julian Bellamy at last week’s Televisual Intelligent Factual conference. Bellamy looked at the week which I had thought of as Torchwood week, from the perspective of Channel 4’s factual output.
On Monday at 9pm Channel 4 had Inside Nature’s Giants – the second in a series of animal autopsies, with 1.7 million/7.5% share. Clearly regarded as ground-breaking natural history programming, this show was presented as Channel 4 doing what it does best. Earlier on Monday, he cited Teenagers Fighting Cancer at 8pm, with 890,000/4% share, and on Wednesday at 8pm Channel 4 had Embarassing Teenage Bodies with 1.8 million/9% share. On Thursday at 9pm Gerry’s Big Decision – a factual business programme – had 1.7 million/7% share.
Clearly Inside Nature’s Giants is Channel 4’s big project in this week – but consider it in comparison to the riches required to fund Torchwood across five nights. I’m not suggesting that Channel 4 should be competing with BBC1, but the gap in terms of resources is striking. You’ll notice that I have made no reference to ITV1 – traditionally the commercial competitor for BBC1 – it simply wasn’t at the races during this particular week.
So what’s going on? There was no competitive imperative which required BBC1 to blast all the commercial opposition with a five night drama. Perhaps these mega-projects are conceived with a different audience in mind – the international sales audience. Something that does as well as Torchwood is bound to have value in the international market. A format like Masterchef is as much a commercial proposition as a domestic programme. BBC1 might not carry advertising – but it is generating a lot of popular programming which has considerable commercial value.
Monday, July 06, 2009
The Case for A Primetime Wimbledon Final.
Far be it from me to tell the people who run Wimbledon how they should run their tournament, but – don’t you think the later stages of the men's competition should be broadcast in primetime?
After all the hullabuloo about the Andy Murray and the New Roof classic on Monday – whereby the Roof facilitated the excitement of finishing a big match late in primetime, on Wednesday normal afternoon service resumed. Monday night’s first Wimbledon night match ended after the 10 O’Clock News should have finished – it peaked at 11.8 million, 54% share at 10.30pm. Great summer evening TV entertainment and a higher peak than was achieved for the semi-final on Friday afternoon and Final on Sunday afternoon.
Wednesday's quarter finals resumed with afternoon tennis-watching taking priority once again. BBC1 starting its Wimbledon coverage at 1.45 pm, running through the afternoon with Murray’s relatively easy three set win recording an average audience for the show of 3.6 million/38% share. The share figure peaked at 5.6m/47% for the early stages of the match, before tailing off slightly.
Would things have been different if the tennis had started at, say 8pm, instead of mid-afternoon? Instead of the highlight show, Today at Wimbledon on BBC2, with just 2.1 million/11% share it’s a fair guess to say that Murray would have done better for BBC1 than Celebrity Masterchef which had 3.9m/20% share.
Assuming Murray’s game filled the two hours between 8pm and 10pm, he would have outrated Waking the Dead with 2.6 million/13% share, and would most likely have seen off The Bill, on ITV1 at 8pm with 4.3m/22% share, and Cops with Cameras at 9pm with 3.1million/16% share.
Wimbledon runs on BBC1,a public service channel, rather than a commercial one, and organisers have not had schedule their best matches around the primetime availability of the TV audience. The order of play for Friday’s semi’s starts at 1pm – I can’t imagine that approach would appeal much to Uefa when it thinks about the Champions League – or Sky and the Premier Leagure for that matter. When’s the best time to play a big football match – about 7.30pm.
But if the weather no longer plays a part, then mid-afternoon is no time for a big tennis game. Does The final really need begin with BBC1 coverage starting on Sunday at 1.30pm?
One of the benefits of the Roof is that it prompts such thoughts. Of course it depends on having a domestic player capable of reaching the later rounds of the tournament, but with Murray into a semi and hoping for better, the prospects for future Wimbledons look rosier than in the past. I’d like to think that meetings are already taking place about how next year’s Wimbledon could be better scheduled to suit the primetime audience. After all, everyone pays for the licence fee, so the more people who can watch live tennis, the better.
Of course it might seem as if there's a something of a gamble involved here, since Murray's exit in the semi-finals resulted in a 'good for tennis fans' final without a domestic hero. The semi-final had an audience of 6.3million/48% share,peaking at 10 million/50% share at 6.30pm. However the Final on Sunday had an audience of 7.1million/49% share on Sunday afternoon, peaking at 11million/55% share at 6.15pm for the epic fifth set.
How much higher would that audience have been if Murray had been in the final? We'd be talking about Britain's Got Talent scale. And a Murray-less Final which finished at 10pm on Sunday would certainly exceed the audience for BBC1's 9pm programme Casualty 1909's 3.3 million/14% share.
So what's the case against running the semi's and Final in primetime? I can only think of one - that Wimbledon is an open air competition which traditionally takes place during daylight hours. So long as there was no way to run the show later in the day, that case was unbeatable. But those days have gone for good. How long before Wimbledon Sunday becomes Wimbledon Sunday night? If those who predict Murray will be back for next year's Final are right, maybe it will be sooner we think.
After all the hullabuloo about the Andy Murray and the New Roof classic on Monday – whereby the Roof facilitated the excitement of finishing a big match late in primetime, on Wednesday normal afternoon service resumed. Monday night’s first Wimbledon night match ended after the 10 O’Clock News should have finished – it peaked at 11.8 million, 54% share at 10.30pm. Great summer evening TV entertainment and a higher peak than was achieved for the semi-final on Friday afternoon and Final on Sunday afternoon.
Wednesday's quarter finals resumed with afternoon tennis-watching taking priority once again. BBC1 starting its Wimbledon coverage at 1.45 pm, running through the afternoon with Murray’s relatively easy three set win recording an average audience for the show of 3.6 million/38% share. The share figure peaked at 5.6m/47% for the early stages of the match, before tailing off slightly.
Would things have been different if the tennis had started at, say 8pm, instead of mid-afternoon? Instead of the highlight show, Today at Wimbledon on BBC2, with just 2.1 million/11% share it’s a fair guess to say that Murray would have done better for BBC1 than Celebrity Masterchef which had 3.9m/20% share.
Assuming Murray’s game filled the two hours between 8pm and 10pm, he would have outrated Waking the Dead with 2.6 million/13% share, and would most likely have seen off The Bill, on ITV1 at 8pm with 4.3m/22% share, and Cops with Cameras at 9pm with 3.1million/16% share.
Wimbledon runs on BBC1,a public service channel, rather than a commercial one, and organisers have not had schedule their best matches around the primetime availability of the TV audience. The order of play for Friday’s semi’s starts at 1pm – I can’t imagine that approach would appeal much to Uefa when it thinks about the Champions League – or Sky and the Premier Leagure for that matter. When’s the best time to play a big football match – about 7.30pm.
But if the weather no longer plays a part, then mid-afternoon is no time for a big tennis game. Does The final really need begin with BBC1 coverage starting on Sunday at 1.30pm?
One of the benefits of the Roof is that it prompts such thoughts. Of course it depends on having a domestic player capable of reaching the later rounds of the tournament, but with Murray into a semi and hoping for better, the prospects for future Wimbledons look rosier than in the past. I’d like to think that meetings are already taking place about how next year’s Wimbledon could be better scheduled to suit the primetime audience. After all, everyone pays for the licence fee, so the more people who can watch live tennis, the better.
Of course it might seem as if there's a something of a gamble involved here, since Murray's exit in the semi-finals resulted in a 'good for tennis fans' final without a domestic hero. The semi-final had an audience of 6.3million/48% share,peaking at 10 million/50% share at 6.30pm. However the Final on Sunday had an audience of 7.1million/49% share on Sunday afternoon, peaking at 11million/55% share at 6.15pm for the epic fifth set.
How much higher would that audience have been if Murray had been in the final? We'd be talking about Britain's Got Talent scale. And a Murray-less Final which finished at 10pm on Sunday would certainly exceed the audience for BBC1's 9pm programme Casualty 1909's 3.3 million/14% share.
So what's the case against running the semi's and Final in primetime? I can only think of one - that Wimbledon is an open air competition which traditionally takes place during daylight hours. So long as there was no way to run the show later in the day, that case was unbeatable. But those days have gone for good. How long before Wimbledon Sunday becomes Wimbledon Sunday night? If those who predict Murray will be back for next year's Final are right, maybe it will be sooner we think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)