Comments on: Freesat Reaches 100,000 Sales Since Launch

By: Steven

Steven — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:33:19 +0000

Yeah . . Full of humour too and quite sexy at times . .

By: Nigel Whitfield

Nigel Whitfield — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:25:22 +0000

Frothy and inoffensive? Something for which, again, there was a sizeable audience – around 30-35% viewing share.

I’d say that’s quite reasonable – and the subject matter, being so well known as part of the UK’s folklore, probably makes it an easy sell for overseas too.

By: Steven

Steven — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:31:30 +0000

So.. What’s the opinion on Robin Hood?

By: Nigel Whitfield

Nigel Whitfield — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:02:42 +0000

It’s managed a steady 9-11% in the audience share; I’d say that’s far from a flop.

It would be a sad day indeed if the BBC were to chase ratings to the extent that they decided anything attracting around 10% share wasn’t worth doing. They have to cater to everyone – and there are frankly plenty of shows that get a far lower share, so I’m not even clear why you’re picking on The Tudors to such an extent.

It’s a show for which there is quite clearly an audience; it’s available in HD, so they put it on the HD channel – and that too, surely, has to serve the whole population of licence fee payers, not just the mass market.

By: Al

Al — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:11:29 +0000

You’re entitled to your opinion but if it was really of mass appeal it would have been up there with Tess of the Durbervilles not below Ugly Betty.

By: Nigel Whitfield

Nigel Whitfield — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:54:08 +0000

It suggests that a lot of people do watch it; I never claimed it was great, but it’s obviously watched by a fair number of people – for BBC2 those are pretty decent figures. You yourself think that this isn’t a popular genre, so for something that’s not so popular to come pretty close to figures for heavily promoted US dramas on a channel that often tends to have a stronger viewing share than BBC doesn’t strike me as at all bad.

But,I think you’ve made up your mind that it’s of limited appeal whatever the figures say. You don’t like The Tudors; fine. But that doesn’t automatically make it a waste of money, or that it’s a ratings flop.

By: Al

Al — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:16:00 +0000

Nigel does it being the most viewed BBC drama that week, really suggest it was great or just the best of the rubbish thats currently on the BBC?

I hardly call being outviewed by Ugly Betty or Desperate Housewives a resounding success.

Outperforming everything on five apart from the new series of CSI Miami is hardly an achievement either when a quite large proportion of the households in the UK still cannot receive it.

Further, a good run of the mill series such as CSI or Ugly Betty should easily be blown away by a showcase drama or film. The fact that they weren’t, says something about the limited scope of appeal that the drama has.

By: Nigel Whitfield

Nigel Whitfield — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:59:08 +0000

2.05 Million for the Tudors in the week ending 14/9/08 – making it the most viewed drama on BBC 2 that week.

The only C4 dramas to outperform it were Ugly Betty and Desperate Housewives, the latter by only 300,000, the former by a mere 70,000. It outperformed everything on five, bar the new series of CSI Miami (2.8million).

Tess of the D’Urbervilles, at 5.96 million, was the highest rated drama across all the terrestrial channels – even beating Wire in the blood (5.93).

I ignored soaps, in considering dramas, but even so, I’d suggest that while Al might not like The Tudors and other such dramas, the figures suggest that a substantial number of people are enjoying it, certainly in comparison to other dramas on TV.

By: Steven

Steven — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:22:13 +0000

For me, the TV (BBC) licence truly offers value for money, no question. I think anyone would agree if you consider ALL the BBC services… I think the BBC made a good choice in The Tudors, personally. .. You could do away with everything else, apart from Channel 4, and I wouldn’t be bothered . .

So, the plasma is off . . It’ll be producing those ‘deep rich blacks’ that LCD’s just can’t do.. Especially if it’s turned off . .

By: AndrewM

AndrewM — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:10:37 +0000

The Tudors might have been a co-production (with Showtime in the US) or it might have been a straight acquisition, but either way it wasn’t solely paid for by the licence fee.