Defend Countdown (Daily Mail article)

Davy Affleck · Post by **Davy Affleck** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:12 pm

Ratings for Countdown have slumped to the lowest in the Channel 4 show's 27-year history.

At the start of the year almost 1.3 million viewers tuned in to see Oxford graduate Rachel Riley and Jeff Stelling take over from Carol Vorderman and Des O’Connor.
Miss Vorderman’s exit was watched by 1.8 million in December, but last week audiences figures dropped to just 650,000.
Countdown insiders admitted that audience figures had started higher than the average for last year, but have started to slide in the past month.
One source said: ‘I think we went up at the beginning, I think people were intrigued to see how Rachel would fill Carol’s shoes. There has been a definite drop off recently though.'

A Channel 4 spokesman said last week's low figure was because of the good weather.

She insisted Countdown had averaged a million viewers since its relaunch.
The show has had a turbulent few years since the death of original host Richard Whiteley in 2005.
It was regularly watched by three to four million viewers when the late presenter and Miss Vorderman worked together.
Since then it faced falling audiences and has struggled to find a long-term replacement for Whiteley.

Des Lynam and Des O'Connor both quit after short stretches at the helm.
Last year there was a huge public outcry after it emerged that Miss Vorderman was being forced off the show.
Channel 4 bosses slashed the programme's budget and told her she would have to take a 90 per cent pay cut to keep her job.
The 48 year-old said the bombshell left her in such a state that she feared she was having a stroke.
Critics feared the show would not be as much of a success without her.
Some fans complained that Miss Riley was not up to the pressure of solving puzzles at speed for television.

It was reported that she failed on several of the tasks given to her during the recording of a series.
Miss Riley beat more than 1,000 applicants to land the Channel 4 job after Miss Vorderman was forced out amid savage budget cutting.
She is being paid £100,000 a year compared with Miss Vorderman's £800,000.
A source at Channel 4 said: 'Rachel missed the occasional problem, but it was nerves.
'Let's get this in perspective, the girl has graduated from Oxford with a masters degree in mathematics. It's not going to be a question of ability.
'She is working on a hugely popular show, doing number tasks in front of the camera and audience – there is a lot of pressure. I think the occasional hiccup is expected.'
Miss Vorderman, who has an IQ of 167, had an amazing record during her 26-year tenure on Countdown.
But she was also occasionally left stumped by the more difficult challenges.
Last year she was upstaged by Bradley Cates, 11, who showed her step by step how to solve a puzzle that had defeated her.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... l#comments

A message board is available for comments

Jennifer McElroy · Post by **Jennifer McElroy** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:26 pm

I do have to say that it doesn't surprise me that viewers are being lost. I am an long term viewer who has stayed with the programme throughout all of the changes. I feel that it has lost its "Mojo" and its laid back easy atmosphere. There is an edge there now which was never there in the past.
I am warming to Jeff Stelling, but Rachel I'm afraid is not working for me. It is becoming more of a chore to watch the programme than a pleasure.
And..where are the audience? have they lost them as well?

David Williams · Post by **David Williams** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:31 pm

It's easy to attack the article, which appears to have been written by one of those chimpanzees that used to type Hamlet but has graduated to Google. But if last week's weather is enough to reduce the audience to 650,000, there's a problem, and what a couple of dozen of us think counts for very little.

David

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:37 pm

Davy Affleck wrote:A message board is available for comments

I posted the following - it'll be interesting to see how much, if any, is left after moderation:

More people watch Countdown than read the Daily Mail, so maybe the Mail should be scrapped. Or perhaps the Mail could try printing some, you know, NEWS (there's a clue in the word "newspaper") instead of recycling old stories based on unattributed quotes and unverifiable "statistics". But hey, that would involve paying some proper journalists to do some actual work, rather than sitting in front of Google for five minutes and stitching together a bunch of paragraphs from previous stories. Who is Liz Thomas anyway? Clearly someone with no journalistic talent or scruples - ideally qualified to work for the Daily Mail then. What a farce.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:40 pm

David Williams wrote:But if last week's weather is enough to reduce the audience to 650,000, there's a problem, and what a couple of dozen of us think counts for very little.

It's probably pertinent to compare it to other shows on around the same time and on other channels to see whether the 'weather' reason holds water. If all shows lost viewers similarly, no problem maybe?

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:45 pm

The weather affects every show right across the board. The day in question was Wednesday March 18th.

Blue Peter had 400,000 viewers.
Alan Titchmarsh on ITV had 900,000 viewers. Even DOND struggled to match its regular audience.

The article suggests Countdown is suffering as a result of change of presenters. A quick look through the records and i notice there were several times in 2003 / 2004 / 2005 when Countdown had low audiences, in the region of 700,000 to 800,000.

Where were Jeff and Rachel then.........?

Kate Horton · Post by **Kate Horton** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:55 pm

And to back up what Damian is saying... our percentage viewership was the same last week as the days we top a million viewers. Hence less people watching tv on those sunny afternoons.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:56 pm

Kate Horton wrote:And to back up what Damian is saying... our percentage viewership was the same last week as the days we top a million viewers. Hence less people watching tv on those sunny afternoons.

That's what I asked up there ^

David Williams · Post by **David Williams** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:01 pm

I didn't appreciate the figures were so volatile, or that they had been so low before. Consequence of the dreadful time slot, I suppose. The "RW/CV used to get four million" point has never been a valid point about presenters. RW/CV got an awful lot less than that in later years.

David Gunn · Post by **David Gunn** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:08 pm

I can't get used to Countdown starting as early as 3.25, so often watch on C4+1.
I'm sure the programme would attract more viewers if it started an hour or so later, as it used to.

Ian Dent · Post by **Ian Dent** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:36 pm

Those comments are fairly damning...

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:55 pm

Ian Dent wrote:Those comments are fairly damning...

Yeah, but the Daily Mail is an utter fucking abomination of a shitrag read by cunts.

A question that possibly Damo and Kate could answer is, do stories like this really matter in any way at all? I mean, surely it's not like someone at C4 will read this drivel and think "hang on, maybe I should scrap that programme from the schedule then", or that somebody is on the verge of advertising and decides not to based on this. These people won't be basing any sort of decisions on the words of some halfwit journo, they'll have the more pertinent and correct figures to hand to do with (as discussed above). And would anybody really sit down to watch Countdown and think "oh, hang on, I remember reading in the Daily Mail that Rachel doesn't solve as many numbers as Carol used to, so maybe I won't bother now"?

Is there any real damage done by this shit? Do I underestimate the power of the media (the answer to this is probably 'yes', as I'm not sure how else you explain the transition from Jade being a fat idiotic pig to a media darling to a vile racist bully to something approaching a saint.)

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:04 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:I posted the following - it'll be interesting to see how much, if any, is left after moderation:
More people watch Countdown than read the Daily Mail, so maybe the Mail should be scrapped. Or perhaps the Mail could try printing some, you know, NEWS (there's a clue in the word "newspaper") instead of recycling old stories based on unattributed quotes and unverifiable "statistics". But hey, that would involve paying some proper journalists to do some actual work, rather than sitting in front of Google for five minutes and stitching together a bunch of paragraphs from previous stories. Who is Liz Thomas anyway? Clearly someone with no journalistic talent or scruples - ideally qualified to work for the Daily Mail then. What a farce.

None.

Karen Pearson · Post by **Karen Pearson** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:07 pm

Do the figures reflect C4 AND C4+1? I work from home so am usually able to take a break at 3.25 but sometimes I am too busy and watch on C4+1 instead. I'm sure I'm not alone so I hope C4+1's figures are not being ignored.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:39 pm

I thought the ratings for Countdown were improving now that Jeff and Rachel are the hosts!

What has caused this dip?

Ian Fitzpatrick · Post by **Ian Fitzpatrick** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:56 pm

Where do they get the figures from in the first place? - no one has ever asked me if I watch it.

If it's from a sample of viewers then they shouldn't be allowed to go and sit in the garden just because the sun is shining!

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:58 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
Ian Dent wrote:Those comments are fairly damning...
Yeah, but the Daily Mail is an utter fucking abomination of a shitrag read by cunts.

A question that possibly Damo and Kate could answer is, do stories like this really matter in any way at all? I mean, surely it's not like someone at C4 will read this drivel and think "hang on, maybe I should scrap that programme from the schedule then", or that somebody is on the verge of advertising and decides not to based on this. These people won't be basing any sort of decisions on the words of some halfwit journo, they'll have the more pertinent and correct figures to hand to do with (as discussed above). And would anybody really sit down to watch Countdown and think "oh, hang on, I remember reading in the Daily Mail that Rachel doesn't solve as many numbers as Carol used to, so maybe I won't bother now"?

Is there any real damage done by this shit? Do I underestimate the power of the media (the answer to this is probably 'yes', as I'm not sure how else you explain the transition from Jade being a fat idiotic pig to a media darling to a vile racist bully to something approaching a saint.)

The story is a follow-up to a News Of The World article on Sunday, albeit a very small one. It isn't the journalist who creates the subject matter, it's fed to them from an outside source, most likely someone formerly connected to the show who harbours a resentment, but i cannot think who.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:58 pm

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:Where do they get the figures from in the first place? - no one has ever asked me if I watch it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcaste ... arch_Board

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:11 pm

You'd've thought thanks to Nu Labour, Gordong and his EU cronies causing the credit crunch and record unemployment, not to mention all the immigrants coming in and stealing even more British jobs, that the potential audience would be enormous! Kids could do with a bit more Countdown in their lives, leaving school unable to read or write, squeezing out kids being the best they can do, living off handouts from cradle to grave. Maybe Countdown should try and be more in line with yoof culture - I bet if the contestants were encouraged to stab each other for drugs and alcopops their audience figures would skyrocket (and it would merely complement the only 'educashun' they're clearly getting in schools). Besides, why should I have to pay for some foreigner to learn from Countdown so he can steal my children's babies whilst I'm working for my country? It's political correctness gone mad.

(I feel like I could do better, but I thought I'd temper it to see if it would get past moderation.)

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:11 pm

D Eadie wrote:It isn't the journalist who creates the subject matter, it's fed to them from an outside source, most likely someone formerly connected to the show who harbours a resentment, but i cannot think who.

That's well out of order, man.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:31 pm

Matt, thank you for posting the ratings but Ian, did you say you were wondering where they came from because you couldn't believe it? That is to say, you couldn't believe they were so low?

Ian Fitzpatrick · Post by **Ian Fitzpatrick** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:41 pm

Jason Larsen wrote:Matt, thank you for posting the ratings but Ian, did you say you were wondering where they came from because you couldn't believe it? That is to say, you couldn't believe they were so low?

If someone told me that was the figure I wouldn't know if that was good or bad. What I don't have much faith is in the way the figures are generated.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:02 pm

I see!

You think that's unfair!

Ian Fitzpatrick · Post by **Ian Fitzpatrick** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:10 pm

Jason Larsen wrote:I see!

You think that's unfair!

I don't know if it's fair or unfair, it's more about accuracy with respect to sampling.

With respect to the great Tommy Cooper:
"Apparently, 1 in 5 people in the world are Chinese. And there are 5 people in my family, so it must be one of them. It's either my mum or my dad. Or my older brother Colin. Or my younger brother Ho-Cha-Chu. But I think it's Colin."

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:12 pm

If they're wrong, that would be a big surprise!

Jimmy Gough · Post by **Jimmy Gough** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:12 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:You'd've thought thanks to Nu Labour, Gordong and his EU cronies causing the credit crunch and record unemployment, not to mention all the immigrants coming in and stealing even more British jobs, that the potential audience would be enormous! Kids could do with a bit more Countdown in their lives, leaving school unable to read or write, squeezing out kids being the best they can do, living off handouts from cradle to grave. Maybe Countdown should try and be more in line with yoof culture - I bet if the contestants were encouraged to stab each other for drugs and alcopops their audience figures would skyrocket (and it would merely complement the only 'educashun' they're clearly getting in schools). Besides, why should I have to pay for some foreigner to learn from Countdown so he can steal my children's babies whilst I'm working for my country? It's political correctness gone mad.

(I feel like I could do better, but I thought I'd temper it to see if it would get past moderation.)

Quality.

George Jenkins · Post by **George Jenkins** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:13 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:You'd've thought thanks to Nu Labour, Gordon and his EU cronies causing the credit crunch and record unemployment, not to mention all the immigrants coming in and stealing even more British jobs, that the potential audience would be enormous! Kids could do with a bit more Countdown in their lives, leaving school unable to read or write, squeezing out kids being the best they can do, living off handouts from cradle to grave. Maybe Countdown should try and be more in line with yoof culture - I bet if the contestants were encouraged to stab each other for drugs and alcopops their audience figures would skyrocket (and it would merely complement the only 'educashun' they're clearly getting in schools). Besides, why should I have to pay for some foreigner to learn from Countdown so he can steal my children's babies whilst I'm working for my country? It's political correctness gone mad.

(I feel like I could do better, but I thought I'd temper it to see if it would get past moderation.)

Michael, Now that you have calmed down a bit, (I hope) I'll take a bite at the lure that you have cast out. I really thought that the credit crunch was caused by Bankers chasing bonuses. The rest of your observations I agree with, including new Labour who I voted for, because I erroneously thought they were socialists. I believe that the culture of knives and crime is encouraged by our humane attitude to criminals who have rights. Criminals including killers, know that prison is only a holiday, and they will soon be released. If I had the power, prison would be a place of dread. and killers would be confined in a windowless cell, complete with a rope to be used at their own convenience. (You thought that I was a nice kind old man didn't you).
But your observations about our young people generally, are not correct. I'm sure that the majority are hard working and want to get on in life. What really sends me into a fury is our justice system which will send a young mother with two children to prison, for stabbing a burglar in the arm. She got a longer sentence than the burglar.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:21 pm

D Eadie wrote:The weather affects every show right across the board. The day in question was Wednesday March 18th.

I can't help noticing that I was no longer on the show on this date - perhaps the weather has nothing to do with it

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:27 pm

George Jenkins wrote:Michael, Now that you have calmed down a bit, (I hope) I'll take a bite at the lure that you have cast out.

George, you do know Michael's post was a joke, don't you?

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:29 pm

Jon Corby wrote:Yeah, but the Daily Mail is an utter fucking abomination of a shitrag read by cunts.

Sorry Kai

Jimmy Gough · Post by **Jimmy Gough** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:30 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
D Eadie wrote:The weather affects every show right across the board. The day in question was Wednesday March 18th.

I can't help noticing that I was no longer on the show on this date - perhaps the weather has nothing to do with it

It'd be interesting to know how much of an impact contestants have on the figures. Wasn't there a massive increase in viewers when Conor was on?

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:30 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
George Jenkins wrote:Michael, Now that you have calmed down a bit, (I hope) I'll take a bite at the lure that you have cast out.
George, you do know Michael's post was a joke, don't you?

Oh, and don't get me started on gays...

Martin Gardner · Post by **Martin Gardner** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:04 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
D Eadie wrote:The weather affects every show right across the board. The day in question was Wednesday March 18th.

I can't help noticing that I was no longer on the show on this date - perhaps the weather has nothing to do with it

Hmmmm.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:14 pm

How they can keep trash like Jonathan Ross and get rid of clever people I really don't know.

lol.

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:57 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
George Jenkins wrote:Michael, Now that you have calmed down a bit, (I hope) I'll take a bite at the lure that you have cast out.
George, you do know Michael's post was a joke, don't you?

One victim versus my three

.

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:15 pm

Jimmy Gough wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:
D Eadie wrote:The weather affects every show right across the board. The day in question was Wednesday March 18th.

I can't help noticing that I was no longer on the show on this date - perhaps the weather has nothing to do with it
It'd be interesting to know how much of an impact contestants have on the figures. Wasn't there a massive increase in viewers when Conor was on?

I was informed at Countdown Towers the rating figures went up half a million when I was on

Jimmy Gough · Post by **Jimmy Gough** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:33 pm

Kai Laddiman wrote: I was informed at Countdown Towers the rating figures went up half a million when I was on

Awesome

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:13 pm

Kai Laddiman wrote:I was informed at Countdown Towers the rating figures went up half a million when I was on

Yeah, but that was just your brothers.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:38 am

Something I've noticed just lately, although I can't put my finger on exactly when it happened: the advertising profile during the commercial breaks in the C4 transmissions has changed out of all recognition from what it was a year or so ago. Gone are the endless ads for stairlifts, retirement plans and Saga cruises; in their place we now have a wide spectrum of ads for everything from cars to computer games and from supermarkets to the latest movie releases. Clearly the advertisers have woken up to the idea that Countdown is a good place to reach a broad audience demographic. Maybe the Daily Hate-Mail should take note.

Davy Affleck · Post by **Davy Affleck** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:38 pm

surprisingly the alleged "newspaper" didn't print my comments in support of countdown

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:53 pm

Davy Affleck wrote:surprisingly the alleged "newspaper" didn't print my comments in support of countdown

They don't seem to have added any comments submitted since 12:46 yesterday.

Jojo Apollo · Post by **Jojo Apollo** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:02 pm

Are they trying to imply that viewing figures have dropped because Carol isn't in the show anymore? Yeah we all just tuned in to see her "banter" with Des.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:16 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Davy Affleck wrote:surprisingly the alleged "newspaper" didn't print my comments in support of countdown
They don't seem to have added any comments submitted since 12:46 yesterday.

I think I should try and do a graph of time of day hate crimes occur to see if there's a spike after 12:46, if this is when Daily Mail writers knock off.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:35 pm

Jojo Apollo wrote:Are they trying to imply that viewing figures have dropped because Carol isn't in the show anymore? Yeah we all just tuned in to see her "banter" with Des.

Jon Corby wrote:
D Eadie wrote:It isn't the journalist who creates the subject matter, it's fed to them from an outside source, most likely someone formerly connected to the show who harbours a resentment, but i cannot think who.
That's well out of order, man.

FFS. It's not often I can be accused of being too subtle.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:47 pm

I thought the crime rate in London went down!

No matter what, they shouldn't blame it on Jeff and Rachel!

Someone on the Countdown crew has e-mailed me in the last day, and she said that they are still having a lot of fun on the show despite the Yorkshire studio closing.

Case in point, Countdown will not be canceled.

George Jenkins · Post by **George Jenkins** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:39 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
George Jenkins wrote:Michael, Now that you have calmed down a bit, (I hope) I'll take a bite at the lure that you have cast out.
George, you do know Michael's post was a joke, don't you?

Phil, I have just re-read Michael's Post and I feel a right twit. (I know that this confession will bring a host of posts on my head agreeing with my own diagnosis, so please be gentle with me. But I did agree with most of his sentiments even if he was only joking.

David Williams · Post by **David Williams** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:05 pm

I just read the article a second time. The funny thing is that, as you read it, you just know it's all leading up to a conclusion that the show is under threat, but it doesn't. It's a very poorly written and researched article, but it's balanced. Accusations against Rachel and a response. Praise of Carol, undermined. And principally the (presumably accurate) fact that the audience fell to its lowest ever figure, with space given to a full response from C4. No attempt to second guess any of the responses, or to have a journalistic final word. In fact a decent journalist would have been all over one or two threads on this forum and had an absolute field day.

Countdown only needs defending from this if you think it's got something to be defensive about.

Martin Gardner · Post by **Martin Gardner** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:24 pm

I can't speak for viewing figures as I don't have access to them, but it's interesting to see the number of positive comments on this forum as a whole about how most people enjoy Countdown more now that Jeff and Rachel are on it. I wouldn't trust that article as far as I can throw my dining room table.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:39 am

Martin Gardner wrote:I can't speak for viewing figures as I don't have access to them, but it's interesting to see the number of positive comments on this forum as a whole about how most people enjoy Countdown more now that Jeff and Rachel are on it. I wouldn't trust that article as far as I can throw my dining room table.

Because obviously this place is going to be a really representative set of people...

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:45 am

Michael Wallace wrote:
Martin Gardner wrote:I can't speak for viewing figures as I don't have access to them, but it's interesting to see the number of positive comments on this forum as a whole about how most people enjoy Countdown more now that Jeff and Rachel are on it. I wouldn't trust that article as far as I can throw my dining room table.
Because obviously this place is going to be a really representative set of people...

Agreed. I'd say that sadly from experience 9/10 people I've mentioned Countdown to away from this forum always comment on how much they miss Carol and Richard - I've heard "it's just not the same" so many times.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:30 am

Matt Morrison wrote: Agreed. I'd say that sadly from experience 9/10 people I've mentioned Countdown to away from this forum always comment on how much they miss Carol and Richard - I've heard "it's just not the same" so many times.

I've heard that mostly from people who never watched it anyway, but just liked the continuity of having the same people on every day.

George Jenkins · Post by **George Jenkins** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:14 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:
George Jenkins wrote:Michael, Now that you have calmed down a bit, (I hope) I'll take a bite at the lure that you have cast out.
George, you do know Michael's post was a joke, don't you?
Oh, and don't get me started on gays...

Because I've learnt my lesson ,I'm going to agree with everything you say.

George Jenkins · Post by **George Jenkins** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:11 pm

Martin Gardner wrote:I can't speak for viewing figures as I don't have access to them, but it's interesting to see the number of positive comments on this forum as a whole about how most people enjoy Countdown more now that Jeff and Rachel are on it. I wouldn't trust that article as far as I can throw my dining room table.

the number of viewing figures can only be accurately assessed over a period of time, and an average figure produced. If reduced audiences can be proved in the future, it may be because of the new format, and nothing to do with the new presenters, as has been suggested. The overall gloomy primary blue colour of the set completely dominates to the detriment of the players. Just one example was one occasion when Rachel wore a red dress. the clash between the primary red dress and primary gloomy blue of the set was hideous. If there has to be an overall colour, a soft light green which is nature's colour, would have been preferable. Rachel's primary red dress, set against the neutral complementary colour green would have looked stunning.

The set is no longer comfortable to watch, and I can prove that by quoting my Wife. She said that she can't watch it any more, because of eye strain and headache. She has been a fanatical fan of Countdown since the first programme, but now it has lost her.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:11 pm

George Jenkins wrote: The set is no longer comfortable to watch, and I can prove that by quoting my Wife. She said that she can't watch it any more, because of eye strain and headache. She has been a fanatical fan of Countdown since the first programme, but now it has lost her.

That's not a great proof. I think it is totally comfortable to watch - it's a less harsh colour than the pink/red set.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:20 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
George Jenkins wrote: The set is no longer comfortable to watch, and I can prove that by quoting my Wife. She said that she can't watch it any more, because of eye strain and headache. She has been a fanatical fan of Countdown since the first programme, but now it has lost her.
That's not a great proof. I think it is totally comfortable to watch - it's a less harsh colour than the pink/red set.

Nah, I'm with George on this, the blue comes across rather strong whereas the previous set seemed a lot softer.

(I was wondering if this was just because of my freaky eye, but the wife agrees, so it's not just me.)

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:35 pm

Well, maybe there are people who were given eyestrain and headaches by the old set and not the new one. It's hardly like we have a whole lot of data to go on.

Ian Fitzpatrick · Post by **Ian Fitzpatrick** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:44 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
George Jenkins wrote: The set is no longer comfortable to watch, and I can prove that by quoting my Wife. She said that she can't watch it any more, because of eye strain and headache. She has been a fanatical fan of Countdown since the first programme, but now it has lost her.
That's not a great proof. I think it is totally comfortable to watch - it's a less harsh colour than the pink/red set.

I have no problem with the new colours, nor Rachel's dresses, especially the red one, but I'm a slow reader and I didn't want to get into a discussion with George.

I haven't seen today's programme yet but the dresses Rachel has worn for the last three days have been quite stunning.

George Jenkins · Post by **George Jenkins** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:57 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:
George Jenkins wrote: The set is no longer comfortable to watch, and I can prove that by quoting my Wife. She said that she can't watch it any more, because of eye strain and headache. She has been a fanatical fan of Countdown since the first programme, but now it has lost her.
That's not a great proof. I think it is totally comfortable to watch - it's a less harsh colour than the pink/red set.
Nah, I'm with George on this, the blue comes across rather strong whereas the previous set seemed a lot softer.

(I was wondering if this was just because of my freaky eye, but the wife agrees, so it's not just me.)

We have watched Countdown since the beginning and there have been changes to the set that we have got used to. the previous colours were soft reds and pinks, and although not perfect, were warm and bright to see. When we watch Countdown it is like inviting comfortable friends into our house, we expect to see them perform in comfortable, quiet, warm surroundings, as we are, watching them. we expect them to be dominant because they are the players and they entertain us. We do not expect them to be swamped and become of secondary importance to a gloomy, primary dark blue set, created by persons lacking in the knowledge of colour harmony and compatibility, but probably thinking that they are modern and "with it".

if I may demonstrate what I mean. Two famous Artists, Constable and Turner, hung their pictures next to each other in the (I'm believe) Royal Academy. Constable's picture was a countryside scene full of detail. Turner's picture was just a series of waves out at sea. Constable and the Judges were mystified by Turners picture. they commented that it was nothing, and what did Turner think he was playing at. the day before the exhibition opened, Turner arrived with a brush and paints. He painted a red buoy at a balanced place in the green waves, and Constable was mortified. Turner's picture glowed with the primary red buoy against the soft neutral green of the waves. Constable's picture look drab by comparison. Turner won the prize.

This is an extreme example of what I complain of about the countdown set. I want the players performing on Countdown to stand out like Turner's buoy, and not be submerged in a gloomy blue colour. By the way, as I have said elsewhere on this forum, I am an Artist, and if anybody wants to dispute my reasoning, I welcome constructive argument.

George Jenkins · Post by **George Jenkins** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:16 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
Ian Dent wrote:Those comments are fairly damning...
Yeah, but the Daily Mail is an utter fucking abomination of a shitrag read by cunts.

A question that possibly Damo and Kate could answer is, do stories like this really matter in any way at all? I mean, surely it's not like someone at C4 will read this drivel and think "hang on, maybe I should scrap that programme from the schedule then", or that somebody is on the verge of advertising and decides not to based on this. These people won't be basing any sort of decisions on the words of some halfwit journo, they'll have the more pertinent and correct figures to hand to do with (as discussed above). And would anybody really sit down to watch Countdown and think "oh, hang on, I remember reading in the Daily Mail that Rachel doesn't solve as many numbers as Carol used to, so maybe I won't bother now"?

Is there any real damage done by this shit? Do I underestimate the power of the media (the answer to this is probably 'yes', as I'm not sure how else you explain the transition from Jade being a fat idiotic pig to a media darling to a vile racist bully to something approaching a saint.)

Absolutely right Jon. When us Engine driver's went on strike in 1955, I found on reading the Daily Mirror, (a socialist paper), that I was a card carrying Communist, a traitor preventing the little office girls getting to work, planning to bring the Country down on it's knees and letting the Russian hordes in. In fact, our Union branch secretary at Orpington had his house searched by secret police in plain clothes. The fact that we were on strike to obtain the same wages that little office girls were earning, was never mentioned.

George Jenkins · Post by **George Jenkins** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:36 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:Well, maybe there are people who were given eyestrain and headaches by the old set and not the new one. It's hardly like we have a whole lot of data to go on.

A sensible reply Charlie. I wonder if, as we get older, we get set in our ways and opinions, but younger people are more tolerant to change.
I won't change my mind about the set of course, but it would be interesting to see the reaction if the set was changed to give prominence to the players. this is another case of you pays your money and takes your choice, and nobody wins.