c4countdown

A bit like Turkeys voting for Christmas here but hear me out.
All 5 episodes last week failed to make the top 50 channel 4 shows.
358,000 viewers I believe.
I think it might be time for a revamp or say goodbye for good.
I would prefer a revamp first with a young dynamic presenter. (someone under 50) a time slot befitting of the the show in order to save it like 5 o'clock and maybe a tweaking of the format (10 letter conundrams)
Maybe go back to 9 rounds to make it a 30 minute show.
What do you think.

Genuinely not trolling here

No way. Matt Hamer still has to go on.

Controversial on a Countdown forum! But I think there are two questions to consider here.

1. Do we Countdown fans think it's getting stale?

2. Do Channel 4 think it's getting stale?

As for question 1, I'm happy carrying on watching it for the forseeable future, so it's a "no" from me.

With question 2, well that's up to them. But when it comes to ending Countdown, I think it's a bit pointless for a Countdown fan to try and put themselves in the shoes of the C4 bosses and come to the conclusion that it should be terminated. If that's what they decide, then that's what they decide, but we don't have to support it.

But reading past the thread title and into the body of the post, perhaps changes could be made. I don't think it needs to be a young presenter though. I don't like the idea that they have to be from a particular demographic group. I certainly would agree with a more prominent time slot, but people have been saying that for years. I think the current format is the best we've had, so I wouldn't go back to 9 rounds, but you could still shorten the show by cutting out some of the waffle.

Confession: Mark took a leaf out of my book (again).

Yes, ratings have fallen BELOW 358,000;
Source: https://www.thinkbox.tv/research/barb-d ... t/?tag=CH4

Last Bank Holiday Monday it was 630,000 and it was the only appearance in the Top 50 that week.

Philip A wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 6:31 pm Confession: Mark took a leaf out of my book (again).

Yes, ratings have fallen BELOW 358,000;
Source: https://www.thinkbox.tv/research/barb-d ... t/?tag=CH4

Last Bank Holiday Monday it was 630,000 and it was the only appearance in the Top 50 that week.

Yes Phillip I did see your Facebook post and ran with it
Dare I say Anne lovely though she is, may be a turn off

It was an additional comment I put in my Facebook post about upcoming new guests, which I posted the day before.

What it needs is a companion app with a play along mode where the highest scoring player playing along gets a prize.

JackHurst wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 7:16 pm What it needs is a companion app with a play along mode where the highest scoring player playing along gets a prize.

When?

TBH, it doesn’t need to be axed. It just needs to be rebooted and jazzed up - a fresh new trio of younger presenters, a cosier set, more action-packed opening titles, neater logo, jazzed-up theme tune, real audiences (crew and up to 3 supporters per player can be the audience and “woop”, so that it doesn’t have to rely on canned applauses), and a regular time slot of 4:10 pm.

There are other quiz shows out there of higher value at this point in time. Countdown is a great format but it’s not enough anymore.

Personally believe that the show has gone down a lot in the last year, with Nick announcing his retirement, the permanent axing of the audience, and Anne Robinson taking over. It certainly does need a revamp, at the moment I can't help but fear there won't be a renewal when the contract ends at the end of next year unless there is one.

I've been watching for about 17 years and can't remember a time when there weren't doom-mongers saying that the show was on its last legs and needed to be axed.

Erm, no, just new blood needed.

Paul Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:04 am Erm, no, just new blood needed.

This.

Had an interesting reply on Twitter by a user who regularly posts ratings for the biggest shows:

“Countdown goes like that. Some weeks it could reach 500K+ viewers and other weeks it'll struggle to peak over 300K, but it does feature in the 'profile section' and 3 out of 5 shows that week was watched by 300k+ and Sir Trevor McDonald's Friday show was watched by 330K.”

I’m surprised by the numbers for Sir Trev’s episode. No wonder All 4 currently retains nearly every episode from the beginning of Series 83. Meanwhie Neighbours has scaled back up to 1 m and that’s on at 1:45 pm and again at 5:30 pm. That’s huge for Channel 5 daytime!

Fairly cheap to make harmless TV that ticks along and fills an hour in the schedules every day. I can't see it going anywhere, unless Channel 4 gets a new boss/head of programming and wants to make a statement.

I also think that moving to a better time slot is unlikely. I'm not an expert, but my hunch would be if a program is struggling for viewers whatever it is, it is more likely to move to a worse time slot than a better one.

I'd like to see it advertised daily, perhaps in the ad break of Steph's Crap Lunch, eg 'join us at 2:10 where we have "insert fabulous guest" and it's Manchester v Liverpool as our current champ takes on....'. Pretty sure that would pull in a few

Paul Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:39 pm I'd like to see it advertised daily, perhaps in the ad break of Steph's Crap Lunch, eg 'join us at 2:10 where we have "insert fabulous guest" and it's Manchester v Liverpool as our current champ takes on....'. Pretty sure that would pull in a few

Yes, more advertising, plus more official social media following (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and so on).

Martin Hurst wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:20 pm Fairly cheap to make harmless TV that ticks along and fills an hour in the schedules every day. I can't see it going anywhere, unless Channel 4 gets a new boss/head of programming and wants to make a statement.

I also think that moving to a better time slot is unlikely. I'm not an expert, but my hunch would be if a program is struggling for viewers whatever it is, it is more likely to move to a worse time slot than a better one.

Yes, they need to boost ratings before they can shaft it to a later time slot. When Fifteen to One was rebooted, it migrated from 5 pm to 3 pm for Series 2 because of falling ratings.

I haven't watched in years. I would like to think some sort of change could entice me back but it probably can't. Certainly I can't watch it live in its current time slot but then I never get to see Only Connect either but I record that. What could entice me to record Countdown? I think going back to half hour 9 rounders and cutting alot of the chit chat would help. Funnily enough I'd rather two 9 rounders a day then an hour long show.

Mark James wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:11 pm I think going back to half hour 9 rounders and cutting alot of the chit chat would help.

Without chit chat you could easily do a 9-rounder in 15 minutes and a full 15-rounder in 30.

Sam Cappleman-Lynes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:24 pm
Without chit chat you could easily do a 9-rounder in 15 minutes and a full 15-rounder in 30.

I would prefer a 15-round game done in half an hour. It’s certainly doable given the show it’s 35 minutes long minus the adverts, which you can now pay to skip on All4+.

The more interesting question... if you assume it's going to be axed... is what happens to the game if the TV show goes away? How robust is the Countdown community?
How fast will fan groups like "Countdowners" lose momentum?
What of the more serious community elements like Apterous and co-events?

End Countdown? No. Like Doctor Who in the 1980s, it is like a political prisoner for Channel 4: too annoying to live, yet too popular (in British culture*) to kill. Axing it would create a wave of negative press for C4 that they don't need.

However... like Doctor Who in the 1980s, it needs a complete reboot - set, titles, the works. The only three people whose jobs should be safe are Alan Hawkshaw, Susie, and Rachel, who are all very well-known nowadays for this exact job. Everyone else needs to think very carefully - director(s), producer(s), set designer(s), etc. The problem is that Channel 4 clearly don't have the willpower to do this and are content to let it plod along on autopilot. If there is one silver lining, hopefully it's that the impending privatisation of Channel 4 will see some movement.


----
*Even if people don't watch Countdown regularly any more (and the ratings make it clear this is the case), I'm sure that the vast majority of Brits are aware of the programme and how ingrained into our culture the show is: semi-regular reminder that Catsdown has always been more popular than 8 out of 10 Cats.

Mark James wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:11 pm I haven't watched in years. I would like to think some sort of change could entice me back but it probably can't. Certainly I can't watch it live in its current time slot but then I never get to see Only Connect either but I record that. What could entice me to record Countdown? I think going back to half hour 9 rounders and cutting alot of the chit chat would help. Funnily enough I'd rather two 9 rounders a day then an hour long show.

By recording the daytime programme and skipping past the adverts, Susie and the guest spot you can easily watch it in 30 minutes.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:29 pm The only three people whose jobs should be safe are Alan Hawkshaw, Susie, and Rachel, who are all very well-known nowadays for this exact job.

Alan Hawkshaw? Oh he wrote the clock music. Well, I don't think he's that well known for it, and I don't think it's a job he has or that he's employed by Countdown in any way. It's kind of a one-off thing he did, perhaps with minor variations along the way. "Yeah, just checking my e-mails this morning. See if there's any work this afternoon for me to do. Doesn't look like it. Again."

But anyway, I think Countdown was actually better when they rotated the lexicographer role. They can still keep Susie, but as one of the pool of available people. Rachel on the other hand has become a bit more of a liability over the years, with her antics on Twitter and litigiousness. Maybe it's time to move on.

As for the presenter, I still don't accept that in principle it has to be a younger person as I don't think that's a good way of judging people. As it happens, the best person for the job is about 50 years younger than Anne anyway. So Mark Deeks it is.

I think if we could get a national treasure like Stephen Fry , Richard Osman or Rob Brydon then age isn't important as it will attract viewers.
I think, going down the Hignify route having different presenters each week might be attractive enough to make audiences viable.
Or go down the Aussie route and have just celebrity contestants

Celebrity contestants only is an absolute no from me. A better solution would be to have one-off primetime editions with celebrity contestants and a live audience, but fundamentally with the format unchanged. This worked well for The Weakest Link, because the format was exactly the same; just a tad bit of jazzing-up in the set. Both series of Celebrity Countdown flopped because they dumbed down the format (Series 1 had a 7-round game instead of a 9-rounder, Series 2 had raw scoring). I would bang up Celebrity Countdown at 8 pm, have good contestants, intenser lighting (like on Catsdown), show it on Channel 4 rather than All 4, and bring the audience right into the atmosphere - maybe even have a different presenter to regular Countdown (this worked for 15-to-1, Adam Hills for celebs and Sandi Toksvig for non-celebs). It would be a good replacement for Catsdown, which is also losing viewers, for as long as it retains the current 15-round format as it is.

A rota of guest hosts each filming block is definitely worth piloting. Bargain Hunt has had a team of a few experts doing hosting duties and it’s worked well over the last 5 1/2 years.

When Angus Deayton left HIGNFY, they originally had guest hosts while searching for a permanent host, but due to increased ratings they decided not to bother appointing a permanent host.

I don’t mind Anne Robinson, but the fact is she is too often rude to the contestants. It’s 2021 now and attitudes have changed since 2001. Hosts are meant to do the opposite - making them feel at ease. She also needs to ask more open-ended questions (how/what/who/why/where/when). ATM she asks too many yes/no questions – this is poor interview technique.

When Anne was on The Weakest Link, her act was more of a pantomime villain. Ironically, being deliberately meaner on Countdown would be better, because the viewers would know she's doing it tongue-in-cheek. At the moment, it's just her natural personality (which was never that warm anyway) and it comes across as she's running out of batteries.

Her style of hosting Countdown is indicating that she was not being a pantomime baddie act after all.

Philip A wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:19 am Her style of hosting Countdown is indicating that she was not being a pantomime baddie act after all.

She has a journalistic background and is a recovering alcoholic so she has a grumpy demeanour by default

But that's the thing - when she was in WL, it was funny because it was hammed up. It's not being hammed up now, so it's just rude.

Some viewers didn’t find it funny; they found it hateful. A marmite personality. Primetime Weakest Link went head-to-head with Millionaire and it was no contest: 3 million VS Millionaire’s 10 million in 2001.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 10:02 am Rachel on the other hand has become a bit more of a liability over the years, with her antics on Twitter and litigiousness. Maybe it's time to move on.

You're missing the mark on this.
Rachel is absolutely the 2nd best thing that has happened to that show in the last 20 years (2nd only to the introduction of the gold standard format, aka 'New' 15R). She is the only staff member that comes close to being indispensable. As regards Twitter, only narcissists and celebrity hangers-on care about anything that happens there. It is quite baffling that the world of celebrity, journalism and the media still haven't twigged that it is their own personal echo chamber and utterly out of touch with the masses.

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 2:33 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 10:02 am Rachel on the other hand has become a bit more of a liability over the years, with her antics on Twitter and litigiousness. Maybe it's time to move on.

You're missing the mark on this.
Rachel is absolutely the 2nd best thing that has happened to that show in the last 20 years (2nd only to the introduction of the gold standard format, aka 'New' 15R). She is the only staff member that comes close to being indispensable. As regards Twitter, only narcissists and celebrity hangers-on care about anything that happens there. It is quite baffling that the world of celebrity, journalism and the media still haven't twigged that it is their own personal echo chamber and utterly out of touch with the masses.

What do you think is so good about her? She's good at the numbers but that's what you expect. Personality-wise, she's pretty bland and comes across as shallow.

I would agree the general public probably doesn't give a shit about Rachel's antics on twitter but her odiousness is definitely a factor for why I don't watch much anymore. She was obviously nice to look at at the start but now she has shown that side of her personality she doesn't look quite as good anymore.

I've also changed my mind on the whole not being given the solution by a computer. Anyone could do her job and just feed them the answer. It wouldn't bother me.

I haven't watched a single episode with Anne either. Probably should before I judge but going on people's comments here I don't think I would enjoy her. I always hated her weakest link shtick so if she's even slightly rude while not even playing a character I don't think I could tolerate it.

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:29 am I would agree the general public probably doesn't give a shit about Rachel's antics on twitter but her odiousness is definitely a factor for why I don't watch much anymore.

I haven't watched a single episode with Anne either. Probably should before I judge but going on people's comments here I don't think I would enjoy her. I always hated her weakest link shtick so if she's even slightly rude while not even playing a character I don't think I could tolerate it.

I’d say Carol Vorderman and Rachel Riley are evenly matched – Riley is better at the numbers than Vorderman, but Vorderman has a more outgoing personality than Riley.

Thursday 23 Sep 2021 episode is definitely worth a watch. Episodes from 4 Jan now stay on All4, with a few missing.

Philip A wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:02 pm
I’d say Carol Vorderman and Rachel Riley are evenly matched – Riley is better at the numbers than Vorderman, but Vorderman has a more outgoing personality than Riley.

Having met them both, I'd say Rachel is much more outgoing and personable. Maybe Carol was getting jaded by that stage, but she seemed completely uninterested in even acknowledging me as a contestant, whereas Rachel was chatty both on and off camera.

Having met both, I prefer Rachel. Yeah Carol was great in her own way, but Rachel I found relates with the contestants more.

I haven’t watched with Anne yet and I haven’t heard things to be fair. Maybe the show now has seen its best days. I don’t know how long Anne is under contract for, but maybe if it’s that bad, I’d say perhaps run it to 40 years and think that’s enough.

I dare say it, but I wonder if apterous has killed things on the show somewhat. Maybe it’s put off a load of people applying but that’s probably for another topic.

I'm a big fan of Susie and Rachel, they both know their roles and make a genuine effort to put players at their ease. Carol had gotten too big for her boots and it was coming across.

Rachel and Susie are both so friendly. Rachel chatted with me and my wife for a good while after my final when she could have just gone back to her dressing room, and she gave one of the last CoC contestant's partner her dress from an earlier episode that day when she simply asked her where the dress came from.

Seems that the only ones who dislike her are the ones with axes to grind about her politics, which shouldn't be a red card offence but seemingly is nowadays. Sigh.

Martin Hurst wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 9:38 pm Rachel and Susie are both so friendly. Rachel chatted with me and my wife for a good while after my final when she could have just gone back to her dressing room, and she gave one of the last CoC contestant's partner her dress from an earlier episode that day when she simply asked her where the dress came from.

Seems that the only ones who dislike her are the ones with axes to grind about her politics, which shouldn't be a red card offence but seemingly is nowadays. Sigh.

It's her behaviour, not her politics.

Martin Hurst wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 9:38 pm Seems that the only ones who dislike her are the ones with axes to grind about her politics, which shouldn't be a red card offence but seemingly is nowadays. Sigh.

I've not heard anyone whinge about her politics. I don't even know what they are.

17 September episode pulled in 354,000 viewers woth a further 50,000 watching on catch-up within a week, scraping into 50th in Channel 4’s weekly top 50. None of the other four shows surpassed the 400,000 mark, but the top-rated episode that week still occupied 11.4% of the audience share in its regular 2:10 pm slot. Some other shows in the Top 50 have shared ranging from 4% to 10%.

In other words, the show is still doing well in its time slot.

Meanwhile, The Chase had just over 3 million, but occupied a massive 43.1% of the share.

The top-rated gameshow was The Hit List at 3.8 million.

So what are folk watching instead from 2-3?
what sort of numbers does SPL get? I'd definitely be advertising the upcoming episode on their ad breaks.

Probably Unbeatable on BBC One, and last few minutes of Neighbours on Channel 5.

Packed Lunch famously got 0 viewers this time last year...

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:19 am What do you think is so good about her? She's good at the numbers but that's what you expect. Personality-wise, she's pretty bland and comes across as shallow.

What is so good about her?!
Everything!

On Black-to-Front day, Anne was replaced and it was better, Susie was replaced and it was pretty much the same, but Rachel was sorely missed. Other numbers woman (can't remember the name) was like a drain on the energy of the show, looked awkward putting up the letters, and seemed defensive when doing her numbers solves. The next day when Rachel was back... the energy levels soared and positivity just bristled. She has an X-Factor, and that some people on this forum don't see it, makes me wish to distance myself even further from the political left than I already do... because whether you will admit to it or not... Martin has hit the nail on the head here. Ye only dislike her because of the Jeremy Corbyn stuff... aka politics.

Let's address some of Rachel's strengths as I see them:-
1. Rachel is stunning looking... and that matters on TV.
2. She has a smiley happy disposition that would put anyone in a good mood.
3. She is cheeky, as can be seen from some of her glances to camera.
4. She is better at the numbers games than the lion's share of Apterites.
5. She is quick-witted and funny, as she has shown time and again in the opening and closing segments.
6. She has emotional intelligence, and applies that often to show kindness to the people around her.
7. She has a clear love of the game, and often will try help the underdog by encouraging tactical play.

You say her personality is bland? I do not know how you can justify that comment. Who have you met in the Countdown community with as sparkling a personality as her? Yourself? Mark? I would struggle to name someone. Maria Chandler maybe, or perhaps Paul Anderson or Stu Harkness... but there aren't many.

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:29 am I would agree the general public probably doesn't give a shit about Rachel's antics on twitter but her odiousness is definitely a factor for why I don't watch much anymore.

"Odiousness". A bit strong, no?

For me, I dislike her brand of militant feminism... the obvious rooting for the woman contestant every single time just because she *is* a woman. That's irritating. Also, the occasional veganism rants are eye-roll-worthy. But odious... never. What example(s) can you give to support a verdict of "Odious"?

Paul Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:18 pm I'm a big fan of Susie and Rachel, they both know their roles and make a genuine effort to put players at their ease. Carol had gotten too big for her boots and it was coming across.

The girls know their place then? Tell me, do you think Damian Eadie is too big for his boots, or are those (conveniently) a perfect fit?

Martin Hurst wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 9:38 pm Seems that the only ones who dislike her are the ones with axes to grind about her politics, which shouldn't be a red card offence but seemingly is nowadays. Sigh.

Martin hits the nail on the head here.
Never has the distinction between "leftists" and "liberals" been more clear than in cases like this. A leftist cannot see past one or two flaws in a wonderful human being like Rachel Riley... not dissimilar to people on the far right discriminating on the basis of frivolous traits like skin colour or sexuality.

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 12:53 am
On Black-to-Front day, Anne was replaced and it was better, Susie was replaced and it was pretty much the same, but Rachel was sorely missed. Other numbers woman (can't remember the name) was like a drain on the energy of the show, looked awkward putting up the letters, and seemed defensive when doing her numbers solves. The next day when Rachel was back... the energy levels soared and positivity just bristled.

It's just a confidence thing. When you're used to putting up the letters and numbers and giving your solutions day in day out, it's bound to get easier and you'll do it with more "flow". I watched an old video of Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear in the late 80s, and he came across as fairly awkward and wooden - nothing like the arrogant and over-confident man he would go on to become.

She has an X-Factor, and that some people on this forum don't see it, makes me wish to distance myself even further from the political left than I already do... because whether you will admit to it or not... Martin has hit the nail on the head here. Ye only dislike her because of the Jeremy Corbyn stuff... aka politics.

You're speculating. Sure, I dislike her Twitter antics, but I never thought she made great TV before I found out about any of this.

Let's address some of Rachel's strengths as I see them:-

5. She is quick-witted and funny, as she has shown time and again in the opening and closing segments.

...

You say her personality is bland? I do not know how you can justify that comment. Who have you met in the Countdown community with as sparkling a personality as her? Yourself? Mark? I would struggle to name someone. Maria Chandler maybe, or perhaps Paul Anderson or Stu Harkness... but there aren't many.

To address just some of this, I don't think she comes across as quick-witted and funny. Anne (and Nick before her) will talk about something boring, throw over to Rachel, and we'll just get some awkward non-sequitur half the time. Sure, she's not being given much to work with either, but she's not exactly outperforming Anne/Nick either.

And I'm not really comparing her with people from the Countdown community. I don't know how well they would do anyway with her job on a regular basis. I'm just looking at her individually doing her job.

And I don't think I've ever said she's terrible at her job, just that she could be replaced without any real loss. I think the main thing going for her that others might not bring to the table is that she's an attractive female, if you think that's what the job requires.

Edit - Plus with what I was saying about her being a liability, this wasn't really about my opinion of Rachel. If you remember, she wore a T-short saying "Jeremy Corbyn is a racist endeavour" and and she rightfully received backlash for it, and was actually she was lucky that it didn't snowball further making her position untenable. Maybe she's learnt from it, but maybe not as she's carried on in other ways, trying to sue everyone who disagrees with her on Twitter.* This is what I meant about her being a liability. And Channel 4 might be a bit nervous about the situation.

*Obviously I'm exaggerating.

Maybe you have a point. Maybe.
After all, Carol was really good at it, and seemed like she was going to be impossible to replace, but they did REALLY well in finding someone.
If they had to replace Rachel, would lightning strike twice?
I am not so sure.

The number of times during series finals that the contestants have been foxed by one that Rachel has found... there are very few people smart enough to get those ones... and even fewer who are that sexy to boot.

Viewing figures for 13-17 December 2021 including 1-week catch-up:
13th: 319K
14th: 259K
15th: 271K (first quarter-final)
16th: 318K
17th: No data

Personally, as part of a refresh, I'd maybe rotate the hosts around.

So for hosts, it could be Colin, Anne or Trevor sharing the role (Ch5 used to have a show called Brainteaser with revolving hosts; as did the BBC on Eggheads for a few years)

Arithmeticians could rotate between Rachel and Anne-Marie (I'm liking Anne-Marie better- she was very awkward at the Black Takeover show and her first show proper, but since then, she's improved and I find she has a real warmth)

For lexicographers, rather than having them rotate (though I'd put Lemn Sissay in that rotation if so), we've had a few Susieless episodes this past series- maybe have the occasional Susieless week every once in a while, or maybe not even a full week, maybe she could do 3 shows out of a recording day of 5 for example, and the other times, have the DC guest on their own.

I agree with the rotating hosts idea (though I wouldn’t have Anne), but disagree with the one/two-person Dictionary Corner idea and the rotating arithmetician idea. DC should always have two people. Rachel and Susie should carry on.

Lets look at a few pointers.......

1 moving Countdown to an earlier time - wrong, 4;30 was the perfect time

2 it should be bought back to 30 mins - 45 mins drags on

3 running all year? - remember when countdown used to have 3 months on and 3 months off twice in a year? at least when it was like that was more something to look forward too

4 choice of presenter......The thing about dear Richard was that he gave the impression that he "owned" Countdown, he made it his show thanks to his way with words and not caring whether he cocked-up

All the other presenters to date look like thay've been dragged in off the street and ask to fill an empty seat

3 February 2022 episode attracted 468,000 viewers and placed 50th, the first Top 50 appearace since the autumn.

For perspective: since 2013, Countdown’s ratings have hovered from 250k-760k, and hasn’t had over 1 million viewers overnight since the Stelling era.

A 2004 episode (the show had over 2 million viewers then I think) popped up on Facebook and the contestant in it agreed with my comment that the show was cosier back then.

This is what I think the ahow has been missing over the last 10 years: warmth, cosiness etc. I think the lack of audiences and the canned applauses have made it even colder.

I would redesign the set with a comfier, cosier backdrop and chairs/tables, plus a fresh new trio of presenters who ease, not tease, everyone in (the BTF presenters did really well at this). It should be like House of Games where is feels like a home, and feels like watching and playing along. Also, contestants should be allowed up to 3 supporters, who can sit at socially-distanced tables. They and the crew can make the applauses without the need to resort to canned applauses.

Maybe it’s just me, but the music and applauses are a bit loud in comparison. In earlier episodes the music, although the same arrangement for 30 + years, sounded softer. Now it sounds rackety.

1. Where do you find this info?

2. How do you already know how many people are going to watch in March hehe

I definitely agree about the volume of the music every time it is used.

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 10:01 am I definitely agree about the volume of the music every time it is used.

It probably depends on your television’s sound balance too. But comparing eps on YouTube, it’s defo louder. On Catsdown, meanwhile, it’s sounds more balanced, and doesn’t get louder until the last couple of seconds.