MD
M D R
It happened to the new This Morning in September too.
JA
I agree with Andrew. While I don't personally like this kind of programme, at least C4 are making an effort to do something a bit different. I'm not sure about the Crossroads analogy because there are already too many soaps on TV and we don't need another one, therefore it falls into the boring category. But the others, yes.
The media in general is too obsessed with ratings. I know ratings=advertising=money, but too many good programmes have been axed simply because they are 'slow-burners' who take time to build up the ratings and will never be smash-hits, but which will always have a loyal following and will be a reliable money-spinner in the long term.
It's why we need the BBC to remain in it's current form! They at least have the capacity to move above all this silliness.
The media in general is too obsessed with ratings. I know ratings=advertising=money, but too many good programmes have been axed simply because they are 'slow-burners' who take time to build up the ratings and will never be smash-hits, but which will always have a loyal following and will be a reliable money-spinner in the long term.
It's why we need the BBC to remain in it's current form! They at least have the capacity to move above all this silliness.
MG
MikeG
I don't think we should write a programme off after a short while. As someone said, many a programme has been axed due to low ratings when, in fact, it was quite good. Personally, I like Richard and Judy as it has that essence of fun as well as the 'This Morning' stuff too.
The BBC seems to have slipped into this way of thinking (axing low rating programmes) with some but am glad to say it keeps programmes which are low ratings earners so they can try again.
I know a lot of people use this analagy (sp?) but take Only Fools and Horses. This is easily one of the - if not the - best sitcoms ever produced. When it originally aired in 1981, it was a ratings flop but the BBC kept with it. Series 2 followed a year later and did marginally better but not much. It could have easily been axed but they chose to stay with it. Within 4 years and 3 series, it was getting up to and on may occasions exceeding 15 million viewers an episode. And now many people class it as always being one of the nations favourites. This is wrong but it's easy to realise why they think that.
I say, in the era of multi channel television where ratings for individual programmes will dive anyway because of the amount of variety, ratings should be not important - the programme should be the most important factor.
Probably on my own with this opinion though. Or am I wrong?
The BBC seems to have slipped into this way of thinking (axing low rating programmes) with some but am glad to say it keeps programmes which are low ratings earners so they can try again.
I know a lot of people use this analagy (sp?) but take Only Fools and Horses. This is easily one of the - if not the - best sitcoms ever produced. When it originally aired in 1981, it was a ratings flop but the BBC kept with it. Series 2 followed a year later and did marginally better but not much. It could have easily been axed but they chose to stay with it. Within 4 years and 3 series, it was getting up to and on may occasions exceeding 15 million viewers an episode. And now many people class it as always being one of the nations favourites. This is wrong but it's easy to realise why they think that.
I say, in the era of multi channel television where ratings for individual programmes will dive anyway because of the amount of variety, ratings should be not important - the programme should be the most important factor.
Probably on my own with this opinion though. Or am I wrong?