WH
Whataday
Founding member
They really have no clue what they're doing with the show. It has been on a decline since ITV started meddling with the lineup (around the time Kate Thornton got the axe) and this attempt to take it more upmarket is just plain embarrassing.
If you don't want a format, get rid of the programme. Don't try and make it something it's not.
Loose Women was popular for being unashamedly downmarket, with a panel that was quite down to earth and cheeky, and if ratings were down slightly, it didn't really matter because the panel would constantly attracted headlines for their naughty and outspoken behaviour, thus maintaining the show's high profile.
Surely 3@Three proved there was no appetite for a daytime panel show with a more newsy agenda?
If you don't want a format, get rid of the programme. Don't try and make it something it's not.
Loose Women was popular for being unashamedly downmarket, with a panel that was quite down to earth and cheeky, and if ratings were down slightly, it didn't really matter because the panel would constantly attracted headlines for their naughty and outspoken behaviour, thus maintaining the show's high profile.
Surely 3@Three proved there was no appetite for a daytime panel show with a more newsy agenda?
NG
Loose Women was popular for being unashamedly downmarket, with a panel that was quite down to earth and cheeky, and if ratings were down slightly, it didn't really matter because the panel would constantly attracted headlines for their naughty and outspoken behaviour, thus maintaining the show's high profile.
Profile means next-to-nothing to advertisers (apart from in a negative sense. If someone on a show is in the press for the wrong reasons, advertisers won't want to associate their product with a show featuring that person).
The only things they care about are ratings AND the demographic of the audience. You can have as high a profile as you like in the papers, if people don't watch the actual show, it's totally irrelevant. Newspaper readers don't generate your revenue, only viewers do. If your audience drops, your income drops.
noggin
Founding member
Loose Women was popular for being unashamedly downmarket, with a panel that was quite down to earth and cheeky, and if ratings were down slightly, it didn't really matter because the panel would constantly attracted headlines for their naughty and outspoken behaviour, thus maintaining the show's high profile.
Profile means next-to-nothing to advertisers (apart from in a negative sense. If someone on a show is in the press for the wrong reasons, advertisers won't want to associate their product with a show featuring that person).
The only things they care about are ratings AND the demographic of the audience. You can have as high a profile as you like in the papers, if people don't watch the actual show, it's totally irrelevant. Newspaper readers don't generate your revenue, only viewers do. If your audience drops, your income drops.
WH
Loose Women was popular for being unashamedly downmarket, with a panel that was quite down to earth and cheeky, and if ratings were down slightly, it didn't really matter because the panel would constantly attracted headlines for their naughty and outspoken behaviour, thus maintaining the show's high profile.
Profile means next-to-nothing to advertisers (apart from in a negative sense. If someone on a show is in the press for the wrong reasons, advertisers won't want to associate their product with a show featuring that person).
The only things they care about are ratings AND the demographic of the audience. You can have as high a profile as you like in the papers, if people don't watch the actual show, it's totally irrelevant. Newspaper readers don't generate your revenue, only viewers do. If your audience drops, your income drops.
I respect most things you post on here, but in this case I disagree with you entirely.
With regards to the degree you think advertisers make decisions based on demographics, I think you give media buyers more credit than they're worth. I used to work alongside a prolific and successful media agency who would routinely advise companies based on the profile of the programme and only a ball-park figure of ratings. And that's not an unusual way of selling.
It is possible to sell a LOT more advertising based on selling it as 'a slot on Loose Women - that show that's always in the papers' rather than 'Loose Women - oh... is that show still going?'
Above all that, even in commercial television decisions on the future of a programme aren't purely down to ratings.
On a similar note, The Big Breakfast survived for a lot longer than it should have done due to the presence of Johnny Vaughan. During his tenure the show's ratings hit a then low of 400,000 (although most articles like to quote his early ratings of 800,000 when talking about his whole time on the show), and yet it would have been unfeasible to scrap it due to its continuing high profile. I'm not saying that's the correct way to do things, but it's incorrect to suggest that a programme can't survive as a result of its profile outgrowing its ratings.
*Obviously when talking about many millions of viewers, a vast decline in ratings can affect advertiser decisions but we're talking a few hundred thousand in the case of Loose Women*
Whataday
Founding member
Loose Women was popular for being unashamedly downmarket, with a panel that was quite down to earth and cheeky, and if ratings were down slightly, it didn't really matter because the panel would constantly attracted headlines for their naughty and outspoken behaviour, thus maintaining the show's high profile.
Profile means next-to-nothing to advertisers (apart from in a negative sense. If someone on a show is in the press for the wrong reasons, advertisers won't want to associate their product with a show featuring that person).
The only things they care about are ratings AND the demographic of the audience. You can have as high a profile as you like in the papers, if people don't watch the actual show, it's totally irrelevant. Newspaper readers don't generate your revenue, only viewers do. If your audience drops, your income drops.
I respect most things you post on here, but in this case I disagree with you entirely.
With regards to the degree you think advertisers make decisions based on demographics, I think you give media buyers more credit than they're worth. I used to work alongside a prolific and successful media agency who would routinely advise companies based on the profile of the programme and only a ball-park figure of ratings. And that's not an unusual way of selling.
It is possible to sell a LOT more advertising based on selling it as 'a slot on Loose Women - that show that's always in the papers' rather than 'Loose Women - oh... is that show still going?'
Above all that, even in commercial television decisions on the future of a programme aren't purely down to ratings.
On a similar note, The Big Breakfast survived for a lot longer than it should have done due to the presence of Johnny Vaughan. During his tenure the show's ratings hit a then low of 400,000 (although most articles like to quote his early ratings of 800,000 when talking about his whole time on the show), and yet it would have been unfeasible to scrap it due to its continuing high profile. I'm not saying that's the correct way to do things, but it's incorrect to suggest that a programme can't survive as a result of its profile outgrowing its ratings.
*Obviously when talking about many millions of viewers, a vast decline in ratings can affect advertiser decisions but we're talking a few hundred thousand in the case of Loose Women*
JW
Back to the recent past format with Andrea McLean hosting the show all this week. (no show on Friday). Come to think of it, Andrea is probably the best of the lot.
WH
Really? I think she comes across really fake and tries too hard to be funny. The mask has slipped once or twice when she's been caught off camera being moody.
Whataday
Founding member
Back to the recent past format with Andrea McLean hosting the show all this week. (no show on Friday). Come to think of it, Andrea is probably the best of the lot.
Really? I think she comes across really fake and tries too hard to be funny. The mask has slipped once or twice when she's been caught off camera being moody.
AN
It was a shame when Kate Thornton left. There were a couple of comments by the others on the show that implied they weren't happy that she was going and Andrea staying.
BA
The old purple daybreak sofa was used today in the studio for an interview. It went well with the set.
Sofa?
The old purple daybreak sofa was used today in the studio for an interview. It went well with the set.
JW
All we need now is Whoopi Goldberg, and you've got a formula!
Not.
And now we have a sofa!
All we need now is Whoopi Goldberg, and you've got a formula!
Not.