Viewing Figures

[Douglas Wilson]

A few questions:

1) Roughly how many people currently watch Countdown?
2) Roughly when were viewing figures at their highest?
3) Roughly when were they at their lowest?

[James Robinson]

It is believed that nowadays the viewing figures are roughly 1 million, if that.

On episode 1 in 1982, it was believed that around 7-8 million watched it and nearly all of them went the next day, believed to be the biggest drop between 2 consecutive episodes of the same show.

It was believed that the lowest were a few months ago, when they were only at 600,000.

That's give or take the answers you were looking for, Douglas.

[Jacob Sutton]

A quick look on BARB shows that in the late 1990s through to the early 2000s, Countdown regularly attracted between 2-4 million viewers. It's quite high on Channel 4's top 30's really up until they switched transmission to 3.15, and from then on, bar RW tributes/Carol's last show, and some Des Lynam episodes making the list, it's totally vanished.

[David Williams]

It's quite high on Channel 4's top 30's really up until they switched transmission to 3.15, and from then on, bar RW tributes/Carol's last show, and some Des Lynam episodes making the list, it's totally vanished.

Cause and effect? My recollection is that at one time Countdown and Brookside were always top of the C4 lists. That's why Carol was paid so much. But Countdown's viewing figures, and position in the list fell steadily. I was on in 2000 when they used to say regularly that they got four million viewers, so I was a bit surprised when I found I was only being watched by less than half that number. I think it was moved to 3.15 because it no longer got massive numbers, but C4 thought it had a loyal, and still large, fanbase, most of whom would stick with it, and then stay to watch whatever came on after it. And whatever came after it (A Place in the Sun?) got more viewers than Countdown had been getting, so it was a good decision.

Damian has put up a stout defence of the viewing figures several times, but the fall in the C4 rankings is harder to explain.

[Clive Brooker]

I was on in 2000 when they used to say regularly that they got four million viewers, so I was a bit surprised when I found I was only being watched by less than half that number.

...you are likely to be seen by over 2 million people.

So the guidelines are 9 years out of date. They also advise (in so many words) that LARDIEST is not allowable.

[Gavin Chipper]

It is believed that nowadays the viewing figures are roughly 1 million, if that.

On episode 1 in 1982, it was believed that around 7-8 million watched it and nearly all of them went the next day, believed to be the biggest drop between 2 consecutive episodes of the same show.

It was believed that the lowest were a few months ago, when they were only at 600,000.

That's give or take the answers you were looking for, Douglas.

What about the highest over a sustained period?

[Clive Brooker]

[quote="Gavin Chipper"[What about the highest over a sustained period?[/quote]
I'm intrigued by this, so I've started pulling the numbers out of the published BARB data to try and see what the overall picture is. Available data starts in June 1998, and in the week beginning 1/2/1999 the lowest audience was 4.32m, the highest 4.48m. During that month the average appears to be well over 4m and I think that's going to be the highest where the data is available.

I'll post anything interesting and possibly some uninteresting stuff as well.

[Jason Larsen]

I thought Countdown's ratings were higher than they've ever been now!

[James Robinson]

I thought Countdown's ratings were higher than they've ever been now!

You're clearly mistaken, Jason!

As much as we all like the new format, viewing figures are nowhere near what they once were!

I was looking on BARB's website the other day to see how many people watched any of my 3 shows and none of the shows were in Channel 4's top 30 for the week, which put it at under 1.2 million.

[Jason Larsen]

I thought that was because of Jeff and Rachel, but I guess I'm wrong.

[Chris Corby]

When Countdown launched Ch4 in 1982, that channel became the fourth in the UK - no satellite then! All five editions of Countdown were in the Channel's Top 10 for many years (nowadays they take the top rated episode of any show that is on more than once a week and ignore the others so as to make the chart more interesting). EastEnders used to get between 20 and 30 million viewers an episode regularly, but now it is under 10 million yet still it is the BBC's top rated porgramme usuallly. The reason is competition with over 200 channels to choose from - in 1982 Countdown's only rivals were childrens' programmes on BBC1 and ITV and probably an old B & W film on BBC2. Nowadays, I think the powers that be are happy if, at 3.25, more people are watching Ch4 than any other channel, even if it has an audience of under a million on some days.

[Junaid Mubeen]

Also the fact that it's so easy to catch up on shows online...I'm guessing ratings don't account for viewings on 4od?

[David Williams]

This forum presumably comprises people who are among Countdown's keenest viewers, but I wonder if any one of them has ever bought anything advertised in the breaks. Ratings are a reasonably accurate and prompt form of data, that show how viewer numbers are moving, but ultimately the only thing that counts is whether the amount advertisers are prepared to pay exceeds the cost of producing the programme.

[Kieran Child]

Depending on which ratings figures are used, Junaid, the survey question could just be "what have you been watching?" in which case any way of watching countdown would 'count'.
The use of people meters is curiously believed to be much more widespread than it actually is.

[Sue Sanders]

This forum presumably comprises people who are among Countdown's keenest viewers, but I wonder if any one of them has ever bought anything advertised in the breaks. Ratings are a reasonably accurate and prompt form of data, that show how viewer numbers are moving, but ultimately the only thing that counts is whether the amount advertisers are prepared to pay exceeds the cost of producing the programme.

I can walk, get up the stairs, cook for myself, haven't got waxy ears so, no, I'm not buying any of those products. But there's only one place I go now if I need to compare the meerkat.

[Kai Laddiman]

There's an intersting article about this here.

[Sue Sanders]

There's an intersting article about this here.

Wheyhey!

[Bert Arter]

Having read all of the comments about the viewing figures I think that the real point about the decline has been missed. It started when Richard died. The magic for me was the obvious friendship between him and Carol and the fact that the program format was great. Des Lynam may well have recreated that magic but he left and Des O'connor, although a very professional operator, never had the required attitude for the program and decided to leave for personal reasons (maybe he could see the program failing). Countdown then made the big mistake by effectively sacking Carol. Following Richard`s death she had, in my opinion, been the anchor to a sinking ship and her leaving brought about the further fall in viewers. The new show with Jeff Stelling and Rachel Riley has not succeeded in recovering the numbers. She is very attractive and has a great personality and fills Carol`s shoes very well so where does the blame lie?

[Clive Brooker]

Having read all of the comments about the viewing figures I think that the real point about the decline has been missed. It started when Richard died.

Sorry, but I don't believe this is true.

The daily pattern of viewing figures in 2003 was very similar to that of 1999. 1999 is the first complete year where BARB data is freely available, and at this time audiences of 4m+ were being recorded on some days, the daily average being comfortably above 3m.

Although the shape of the graph in 2003 follows the 1999 pattern very closely, the average daily audience was by this time about 1.5m fewer. In September of that year the show was moved to a poorer slot an hour earlier and it immediately disappeared from C4's top 30, almost without trace.

This all happened around 2 years before Richard died.

[Kirk Bevins]

Yes, the earlier timing of the show caused many schoolkids and parents to not be able to watch the show - the worst thing that Channel 4 ever did in my opinion.

[David Williams]

I've started pulling the numbers out of the published BARB data to try and see what the overall picture is. Available data starts in June 1998, and in the week beginning 1/2/1999 the lowest audience was 4.32m, the highest 4.48m. During that month the average appears to be well over 4m and I think that's going to be the highest where the data is available.

I'll post anything interesting and possibly some uninteresting stuff as well.

Any more detail to report? Monthly averages, say.

[Clive Brooker]

I've started pulling the numbers out of the published BARB data to try and see what the overall picture is. Available data starts in June 1998, and in the week beginning 1/2/1999 the lowest audience was 4.32m, the highest 4.48m. During that month the average appears to be well over 4m and I think that's going to be the highest where the data is available.

I'll post anything interesting and possibly some uninteresting stuff as well.

Any more detail to report? Monthly averages, say.

On it's way, David. It's not so easy to do monthly or weekly averages because the data is missing when a particular day drops below 30th place. This hardly ever happened before 2001 at least but it was more frequent in 2003 - not least because there was a multiplicity of Big Brother programmes occupying half the top 30 for part of the year. When looking for a response to Bert's post I tried superimposing one year on another and that gave quite a strikingly consistent picture, and it doesn't matter so much that the data for a few days is missing. So I think I'll pursue that.

[Kai Laddiman]

the data is missing

*growl*

[David Williams]

Time for an update of Rachel v Carol while you're at it!

[Clive Brooker]

Time for an update of Rachel v Carol while you're at it!

Some people in my household think my priorities should lie elsewhere.

[Clive Brooker]

the data is missing

*growl*

[Jeffrey Burgin]

At yesterday's recordings Dudley, the warm-up bloke, said viewing figures were beginning to slightly go up, suggesting either a continuation in averages from before or possibly a small drop. I've often said to my dad that I can't believe Jeff and Rachel would be controversial enough choices to turn away older viewers, and I'm sure that more young and/or male viewers would come through due to Jeff being a ledge with Soccer Saturday and Rachel being, well, Rachel.

[Charlie Reams]

At yesterday's recordings Dudley, the warm-up bloke, said viewing figures were beginning to slightly go up, suggesting either a continuation in averages from before or possibly a small drop. I've often said to my dad that I can't believe Jeff and Rachel would be controversial enough choices to turn away older viewers, and I'm sure that more young and/or male viewers would come through due to Jeff being a ledge with Soccer Saturday and Rachel being, well, Rachel.

Dudley says a lot of things...

[Jeffrey Burgin]

Dudley says a lot of things...

Fair enough, but I don't see any particular reason for him to lie. The audience are there because they obviously like the show, it's not like they're a load of critical hacks who are hounding him over the supposed fact that audiences have halved since the new presenters.

[Charlie Reams]

Dudley says a lot of things...

Fair enough, but I don't see any particular reason for him to lie. The audience are there because they obviously like the show, it's not like they're a load of critical hacks who are hounding him over the supposed fact that audiences have halved since the new presenters.

I'm not saying he's lying, just that he probably isn't an expert on analysing long-term statistical trends. FWIW I couldn't give a shit about the ratings, the show is clearly better than its ever been and if a bunch of Daily Mail readers are still too busy lamenting the dethroning of Carol to actually watch the thing then good riddance.

[Jeffrey Burgin]

I'm not saying he's lying, just that he probably isn't an expert on analysing long-term statistical trends. FWIW I couldn't give a shit about the ratings, the show is clearly better than its ever been and if a bunch of Daily Mail readers are still too busy lamenting the dethroning of Carol to actually watch the thing then good riddance.

Oh ok, my bad. Perhaps Damian or someone who knows more about such things mentioned it to him? I'd have to agree with you, I couldn't care less about the viewing figures as I think the show is more fun and entertaining than ever before (and the presenters are just as great off-camera as on), but I thought it would be interesting to give people interested in viewing figures some, admittedly sketchy, info.

[Clive Brooker]

This is a graph of Countdown's viewing figures between 1998 and 2003:



With such a strong seasonal trend, it would be surprising if the audience wasn't starting to increase as we approach mid-September.

[Charlie Reams]

Good work as ever, Clive.

[Kai Laddiman]

Wow, at the end of that graph 1.5 people tuned in.

[Ian Volante]

Wow, at the end of that graph 1.5 people tuned in.

I was the 0.5.

[Jason Larsen]

Jeff, Dudley is right.