c4countdown

Countdown viewing figure are at an all-time low, even beating what was the lowest of Episode 3.

So, let's boost viewing figures from a furious fan backlash!

1. Move Countdown (or, at least, the finals) to 7pm.
2. Change Countdown back to half an hour.
3. Include some more popular celebrities (Cheryl Cole, Rihanna etc.) in Dictionary Corner (so they can have a primetime argument with Rachel about who's the fittest).
4. Have a Championship of Champions and a Supreme Championship 2 -

Richard Whiteley at the start of Series 33 wrote:A Supreme Championship happens once every 33 Series!

5. Shorten the Championship of Champions to 7 eps.
6. Promote it better on Channel 4 - instead of "Oh, here's Countdown" as if it's not much, have a "So, Joe Bloggs won yesterday but can he be stopped? It's... Countdown.".
7. Make ads for it and all the Countdown merchandise.
8. Go back to 14-round finals.
9. Have a celebrity Series.
10. Have a new set.

Also, replace Jeff with Idris Elba and Rachel with Angelina Jolie, then change it from a game show into an action movie set in the mean streets of Boston in the 1980s. Danny Elfman to remix the theme tune. Tag line: "Countdown... to destruction!!"

Viewing figures would skyrocket.

1. Introduce a premium phone number style competition at the ad break to win £500.
2. ???
3. Profit.

Jon Corby wrote:1. Introduce a premium phone number style competition at the ad break to win £500.
2. ???
3. Profit.

They could totally tie that in to the tea-time teaser. Like ITV Play but with 8 letter anagrams "Today's is EARSTING, our first caller said ANGRIEST, but that wasn't right, I wonder if anyone will win today..."

Rhys Benjamin wrote:Countdown viewing figure are at an all-time low, even beating what was the lowest of Episode 3.

Really? No!

I interviewed 100 people. Here is a breakdown of what they said:

3: I watch Countdown regularly or semi-regularly.
8: I occasionally watch Countdown but don't have time to watch it any more.
72: I don't watch Countdown at all and won't do until they introduce an extra numbers round (10-4-1 instead of 11-3-1)
12: I don't watch Countdown at all and won't until they move it back to a reasonable time (after 4:00)
5: I don't watch Countdown at all and won't until they knight Richard Whiteley.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:Countdown viewing figure are at an all-time low, even beating what was the lowest of Episode 3.

So, let's boost viewing figures from a furious fan backlash!

1. Move Countdown (or, at least, the finals) to 7pm.

Probably a mistake, as then Countdown would need to become more of a viewing-figure chasing show to justify that time slot, rather than the laid-back cult thing it is and should continue to be. At the moment, all Countdown has to contend with is the six-monthly ritual of Liz Thomas writing that same article for the Mail (aren't we due another one soon?), but if it were at 7pm, Channel 4 might be all "viewing figures are down on last week because all of a sudden everyone's watching Celebrities Got Talent Pratting About On Ice on the other side, what are you going to do about it?"

Rhys Benjamin wrote:2. Change Countdown back to half an hour.

Why? So we can have an extra 15 minutes of Deal or No Deal?

Rhys Benjamin wrote:3. Include some more popular celebrities (Cheryl Cole, Rihanna etc.) in Dictionary Corner (so they can have a primetime argument with Rachel about who's the fittest).

Mustn't.... dignify.... with.... response....

Rhys Benjamin wrote:4. Have a Championship of Champions and a Supreme Championship 2 -

Richard Whiteley at the start of Series 33 wrote:A Supreme Championship happens once every 33 Series!

5. Shorten the Championship of Champions to 7 eps.

When Damian used to post on here he seemed to think a CoC would have exactly the opposite effect, it would drive viewers away. Not sure what's changed since they regularly did a CoC every few years (except nowadays there's a website where past contestants can and do play each other whenever they like!), but I presume Damian has access to detailed day-by-day viewing figures that suggest that would be the case.

However, I do think they should continue the practice started with Chris and Kirk of having the two series champions in the same year play each other in a special. As far as I know they planned a special between Oliver and Jack but it got postponed for some reason.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:6. Promote it better on Channel 4 - instead of "Oh, here's Countdown" as if it's not much, have a "So, Joe Bloggs won yesterday but can he be stopped? It's... Countdown.".

This I definitely agree with. I'm sure they used to introduce the final stages as "here's the grand final of Countdown" or "here's the second semi-final" or some such, now they just introduce each episode like they're all the same. At least I think they do, maybe I haven't been paying attention. Still, it wouldn't kill the Channel 4 continuity people to give a special introduction twice a year, like "After six months and 114 games, only two players remain: floppy-haired walking dictionary Jack Hurst and not-so-floppy-haired boy wonder Eoin Monaghan go head to head for the Countdown series final". (Yes, there's a reason I don't have a career as a scriptwriter, but you get the idea.)

Rhys Benjamin wrote:7. Make ads for it and all the Countdown merchandise.
8. Go back to 14-round finals.
9. Have a celebrity Series.
10. Have a new set.

I don't think you need to advertise Countdown. Everybody's heard of it, it's ingrained in popular culture, but seeing an advert for it is unlikely to make significant numbers of people watch it who don't already.

Also, I like the blue "Numbers" set. It's better than the old bright pink "Aargh, My Eyes" set. And I doubt changing the set will increase viewing figures. Sounds like reinvention for reinvention's sake.

Graeme Cole wrote:some stuff

I agree.

I would like to see the guest in dictionary corner have to play along without help from Susie.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I interviewed 100 people.
72. I don't watch Countdown at all and won't do until they introduce an extra numbers round (10-4-1 instead of 11-3-1)

Unless that was a joke, I agree. The maths side of the game has been long neglected. I find four letters games in a row quite tedious sometimes, and I know a few other viewers who do to. How about a numbers teaser as well? I also think they could introduce different puzzles, like the duels in the French version:

Classic Duel: which consists of finding two words on the same theme after 9 letters have been given,
"l'un dans l'autre" ("one within the other"): with nine given letters, find a nine-letter word and another word, within the first; one a proper noun, the other a common noun.
"la bonne orthographe" (the "correct spelling"): a word is proposed and the winner is the one who spells this word correctly first,
"le calcul mental" ("mental arithmetic"): the players must complete a calculation (for example, 24 × (32 − 5 × (42 ...) in their heads and buzz in when they get the answer like in the conundrum.

Is it me, or don't you think the old 14-rounds finals were more fun and tense in the past? The finals now just seem almost the same as a normal game. Why not shorten the DC celeb section and get rid of the Origin of Words (just 4 the final) and include more numbers and conundrums. Perhaps, change the large number cards to more difficult numbers like they did for the specials, and add a couple more J's, Q's, X's, Z's etc to give the finalists more of a challenge and make it more tense for them and for us to watch.

Graeme Cole wrote:I don't think you need to advertise Countdown. Everybody's heard of it, it's ingrained in popular culture, but seeing an advert for it is unlikely to make significant numbers of people watch it who don't already.

Top two questions I get asked about Countdown

1. "That Rachel Riley bird's fit, isn't she?"
2. "Countdown... Is that show still on?"

I think there is a need to advertise Countdown. Rachel should probably also feature heavily in the adverts.

Ciaran Thompson wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:I interviewed 100 people.
72. I don't watch Countdown at all and won't do until they introduce an extra numbers round (10-4-1 instead of 11-3-1)

Unless that was a joke, I agree. The maths side of the game has been long neglected. I find four letters games in a row quite tedious sometimes, and I know a few other viewers who do to.

It does actually reflect my opinion. It is logical and correct. Some people disagree, but it is not just another opinion. They are objectively wrong.

Is it me, or don't you think the old 14-rounds finals were more fun and tense in the past? The finals now just seem almost the same as a normal game. Why not shorten the DC celeb section and get rid of the Origin of Words (just 4 the final) and include more numbers and conundrums. Perhaps, change the large number cards to more difficult numbers like they did for the specials, and add a couple more J's, Q's, X's, Z's etc to give the finalists more of a challenge and make it more tense for them and for us to watch.

I used to quite like the old 14-round finals as well, but it does sort of make it a different game. There is a logic to having the same game all the way through. I think I just liked it anyway because it had more numbers. By having the proper 15-round format with four numbers games, there would be no need for a different type of final.

Martin Bishop wrote:

Graeme Cole wrote:I don't think you need to advertise Countdown. Everybody's heard of it, it's ingrained in popular culture, but seeing an advert for it is unlikely to make significant numbers of people watch it who don't already.

Top two questions I get asked about Countdown

1. "That Rachel Riley bird's fit, isn't she?"
2. "Countdown... Is that show still on?"

I think there is a need to advertise Countdown. Rachel should probably also feature heavily in the adverts.

If I mention Countdown to my friends, they always talk about Carol Vorderman and look faintly surprised when I point out that she's not on it any more. The Countdown ingrained in popular culture is the Whiteley-and-Vorderman era, refreshing people's memories can't be a bad idea.

Also, students are supposed to make up a large proportion of viewers, but I don't know any in person that watch it. Clearly, the only solution is to make a hybrid show of Countdown and Jeremy Kyle, where the two men who could be the father/the two girls some unemployed bloke's having it off with [delete where appropriate] go head to head in a Countdown battle, presented by JK (who would judge them for not getting maxes the whole way through), and featuring mass brawls at random points to keep viewers on their toes. Problem solved.

Graeme Cole wrote:

Rhys Benjamin wrote:6. Promote it better on Channel 4 - instead of "Oh, here's Countdown" as if it's not much, have a "So, Joe Bloggs won yesterday but can he be stopped? It's... Countdown.".

This I definitely agree with. I'm sure they used to introduce the final stages as "here's the grand final of Countdown" or "here's the second semi-final" or some such, now they just introduce each episode like they're all the same. At least I think they do, maybe I haven't been paying attention. Still, it wouldn't kill the Channel 4 continuity people to give a special introduction twice a year, like "After six months and 114 games, only two players remain: floppy-haired walking dictionary Jack Hurst and not-so-floppy-haired boy wonder Eoin Monaghan go head to head for the Countdown series final". (Yes, there's a reason I don't have a career as a scriptwriter, but you get the idea.)

Yeah, definitely. I remember quite recently the CH4 woman said something along the lines of 'I hate to disappoint you, but it's Countdown'.

Thomas Carey wrote:Yeah, definitely. I remember quite recently the CH4 woman said something along the lines of 'I hate to disappoint you, but it's Countdown'.

I remember the time when she said "and now, for all your boring cunts, here's Countdown!". I was somewhat put out.

I can guarantee the loss of at least 1 viewer, if the proportion of Numbers Rounds in a game were to be increased beyond the current 20%. I already FFWD through the numbers games as it is.

Of course, losing me as a viewer may be offset, by people who like the Numbers games and don't already watch Countdown. But bearing in mind the success of word-based quiz shows over the last 30 years, and the dearth of successful arithmetic-based quiz shows, I'd be genuinely surprised if an increase in Numbers rounds proved a ratings winner.

Matt Bayfield wrote:I can guarantee the loss of at least 1 viewer, if the proportion of Numbers Rounds in a game were to be increased beyond the current 20%. I already FFWD through the numbers games as it is.

Of course, losing me as a viewer may be offset, by people who like the Numbers games and don't already watch Countdown. But bearing in mind the success of word-based quiz shows over the last 30 years, and the dearth of successful arithmetic-based quiz shows, I'd be genuinely surprised if an increase in Numbers rounds proved a ratings winner.

No one is suggesting for one minute that adding one extra numbers game will suddenly improve the ratings. What some of us mean is that improving the numerical content is just one of a few things they could and should do to change it around and improve things. I also suggested including different words and numbers puzzles to the game like the ones in the French Countdown - "Des chiffres et des lettres", (or just for specials and / or supreme championships).

The numbers games may appear to make up a reasonable 20% of the game as you say, but if you include the Teatime Teasers and The Origin of Word's section, then it makes up an even smaller percentage of the game. If you look at the foreign versions, their numerical content makes up around a third of the game, and they've all been successful incarnations of Countdown. The French one (being the original) has lasted since the 60's and each show starts with a numbers game:

French - 5 numbers games out of 16 rounds (& sometimes a numbers duel)
L. American Spanish - 4 numbers games out of 13 rounds
Spanish - 4 numbers games out of 13 rounds
Dutch - 4 numbers games out of 12 rounds
Australian - 3 numbers games out of 9 rounds (& yet we only have 3 out of 15 rounds, ugh)

Remember also that Carol became famous for her numerical skills (and her rear), because of the numbers game, which I know gave Countdown much recognition. Without learning about numbers, you wouldn't have been able to work out that percentage lol!

I would also suggest that it would be slightly over-the-top to stop watching Countdown on the basis of a single extra numbers game, unless you are a very borderline viewer anyway who thinks that the current format is only just favourable enough to you to watch it.

Realistically I don't think it would change viewing figures (up or down) by any significant amount but I thought I'd mention it anyway.

And on Ciaran's point about it not really making up 20% of the game because of all the extra bits, I think it struggles to make up 20% of the relevance of the game anyway. An easy numbers round is essentially not a round and it's rare not to get at least one of those in a game. Sometimes it's all three and the numbers essentially have nothing to say for the entire game. A "flat" letters game is a completely different affair, because unless you get a nine or are an obsessive Apterite, it's quite rare to know for definite that you've maxed the round, so there is work to do for the entire 30 seconds.

(And then of course there's the age-old argument that an odd number of each type of round leads to unfair picking.)

Thanks for the responses, Ciaran and Gev, although I'm not going to be drawn into a lengthy debate on whether Numbers or Letters rounds are more interesting. My feelings on that are well-known, and one of the reasons I don't watch dCedL any more is the increased emphasis on arithmetic compared to Countdown.

My original post was simply a response to Gev's original post, which, though clearly tongue-in-cheek, appeared to suggest that increasing the emphasis on arithmetic would improve viewing figures. Realistically, I agree with Gev's most recent post that one extra Numbers game would make little difference to viewing figures either way. Although since we also agree that many of the Numbers rounds are trivially easy, surely the last thing we'd want to do to improve ratings, is to add more such trivial Numbers rounds. At least this is avoided in dCedL by not allowing the contestants to pick the numbers, and by picking more difficult selections (e.g. 2 large, sometimes with a repeated large number). The Numbers Duels on dCedL are also difficult.

And yes, I know that 2 large is statistically more likely to be exactly soluble than 1 large. In practice I think 2 large is harder for humans, and more interesting, than 1 large, as to get near the target, you have more options than simply multiplying the large number by a small number (e.g. add both large numbers before multiplying by a small number; work with one large number then subtract/add the other large number at the end).

Gavin Chipper wrote:... the proper 15-round format with four numbers games

That's quite a bold claim. I suppose the 2­­½:1 ratio between letters and numbers neatly bisects what was on offer under the 9- and 14-round versions, but it's still arbitrary. I suspect all the formats ever used have been influenced more by the need to fit a programme into the spaces between advertising breaks rather than from any thought of optimising the game itself.

I first became a regular viewer during what I now know to have been Series 47. My working pattern at the time required me to be getting ready to leave home during the morning repeats, and it helped me to wake up. At the time I was unable to compete in the letters rounds but I used to marvel at how ill-prepared these highly intelligent people often seemed to be for the numbers. So for a new viewer primarily interested in the numbers, paradoxically the very fact that the format allowed contestants to get away with being so poor at the numbers made the show more attractive, not less.

Gavin Chipper wrote:And on Ciaran's point about it not really making up 20% of the game because of all the extra bits, I think it struggles to make up 20% of the relevance of the game anyway. An easy numbers round is essentially not a round and it's rare not to get at least one of those in a game. Sometimes it's all three and the numbers essentially have nothing to say for the entire game. A "flat" letters game is a completely different affair, because unless you get a nine or are an obsessive Apterite, it's quite rare to know for definite that you've maxed the round, so there is work to do for the entire 30 seconds.

I wondered whether this is true. There are many rounds where there's a 7 or 8 which practically anyone can spot and which is good enough to share the round. The expert may come up with lots of fancy alternatives but gains nothing from them. Isn't that the letters equivalent of the stupidly easy numbers round?

Historical statistics suggest that the proportion of rounds won as opposed to shared is very close to 50% for both letters and numbers. However, in any particular game, the numbers rounds are far more likely to be one-way traffic than the letters. So I think it's fair to say that in terms of influencing the final score, the numbers tend to punch above their weight.

FWIW I've estimated the relative influence of the three disciplines during the 15-round era as 55% letters, 25% numbers and 20% conundrum, a bit different from the 73%/20%/7% suggested by the 11/3/1 split.

That's a quite interesting analysis. But I think the problem is more than just what I initially outlined. The champion only gets to choose the selection for one numbers game, so that's a reduction from 1/9 to 1/15 of the total rounds. This is likely to make a difference in a higher quality game. If the player picking once finds himself behind in the game, he's unlikely to be able to do any damage on the numbers if the player in front goes for one large. So I think the problem is probably greater when there are two good players, and your overall stats don't show this.

I know there are flat letters games too, but I would actually expect there to be more volatility from the type of round that there's less of. I find it a bit unsatisfying to have whole games where the numbers are of no relevance whatsoever. So I think it's right that with fewer numbers rounds, a player good at numbers should be able to expect to do more with them. Two choices in the numbers would be a perfectly good balance for that I think. The other player can go for one large in his, but I think over 15 rounds, it's right for someone do have two chances at something like 6 small/4 large.

And I think it's intrinsically unfair, not to mention aesthetically very ugly, to have one contestant choosing once and the other one twice.

I don't actually think that this would increase viewing figures, but I think it would be a better system.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:6. Promote it better on Channel 4 - instead of "Oh, here's Countdown" as if it's not much, have a "So, Joe Bloggs won yesterday but can he be stopped? It's... Countdown.".

Actually, it turns out they used to do this. Nowadays it seems they spend more time talking about Deal or No Deal in 45 minutes than the show that's just about to start.

Some suggestions:

1) Live editions like DOND are doing now

2) A cross between 15 to 1 and Countdown, 15 contestants, Round 1: each contestant has three lives, everyone is given the same set of letters at the same time and they have to find the longest word, those that don't, lose a life. Round 2: same as round 1 but those who have already lost a life are eliminated (lose their last two lives), if they don't find the longest word this time (rounds 1 and 2 are 30 seconds in length) Round 3: You can nominate someone to solve a 10 second counudrum, after initially buzzing in quickest to a conundrum open to all contestants, if the nominated person doesn't get it right they lose a life and the initial person who solved the open conundrum can nominate again, if the nominated person gets it right they can nominate and so on until only three people remain. Final Round: 40 counundrums on the buzzer to the last three remaining contestants are given three lives again (if they have lost any), where your lives tally from the previous round is carried over as your points tally, you can nominate as before if you get a conundrum right, to try to eliminate the other two, or try to build up your points tally by answering conundrums for yourself, get one wrong and you lose a life as before, then you have a finals board, where the top fifteen scorers return for a grand final.

3) Team Countdown, normal 15 round show but you have a team of four to consult during each round.

4) A three way shoot-out, normal show but with three contestants instead of two.

5) Speed Countdown, each round is 15 seconds only.

This could surely help.

Nick Hewer is having the opposite effect... I'm hating him and am rarely watching, shockingly. My Mum doesn't like the 15-round format (nor do I). It's only "fit and proper" to have Countdown on the telly

To improve:

a) I can watch it - 3:10 is just unacceptable.
b) Get someone good.
c) Change it back to a 9-rounder.

I will admit that i havent seen countdown since the first 2 hewer episodes in January - these days im so busy with other things

the thing is that thanks to the format being so simple, countdown will go on forever so it dosent matter to me if i miss it for a while

I feel that the show is not quite as "must see" as it was when I was at school

but the show does have a place in my heart even if i havent watched it for ages

I'm going to revitalise this thread:

1. Get a good presenter.
2. Put Countdown back to an erstwhile time. The prime-time specials show that there is a market for Countdown (8/10 cats #1 was third that week). Countdown is watched by students and elderly (mainly). The elderly aren't surviving, and the students are still at school/tucked up in bed at 2:40pm. After I advertised Countdown on Twitter, a friend of mine went: "What's it doing at 2:40?!". It also makes the phrase "TEATIME teaser" redundant.
3. Switch it back to half an hour. This would rejuvenate Channel 4's afternoon schedule as: 1:30pm FILM, 3:00pm Face the Clock, 3:30 Deal or No Deal, 4:30 Countdown, 5:00 Come Dine With Me. I often turn on about halfway through and I'm not quite sure which round we're on, especially if it's round 7 or 8.
4. Do away with those HIDEOUS new displays. For anyone who read the spoilers thread yesterday, I have fully recovered by looking at Comic Sans MS in Green on Pink.
5. Have more prolific DC guests.
6. Definitely need better continuity.
7. Definitely need trailers and the like to be shown at prime time.
8. Have more Countdown documentaries like they did in the late 90's and early 00's.
9. Repeat classic Countdown episodes from the late 90's and early 00's. Time can be whenever you like.
10. Go back to the old 14-round final. It always gave more of a sense of occasion.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:4. Do away with those HIDEOUS new displays. For anyone who read the spoilers thread yesterday, I have fully recovered by looking at Comic Sans MS in Green on Pink.

Sometimes I can't tell if you're trolling or not.

Jennifer Steadman wrote:

Rhys Benjamin wrote:4. Do away with those HIDEOUS new displays. For anyone who read the spoilers thread yesterday, I have fully recovered by looking at Comic Sans MS in Green on Pink.

Sometimes I can't tell if you're trolling or not.

No, I generally hate them! They are HIDEOUS!

I know what a troll does. This is not it.

I agree, the 'sorry to disappoint you but it's Countdown' remark was below the belt.
What would have been wrong with putting that rubbish 'Face The Clock' on at 2.40 and keeping Countdown at 3.10?
If you keep changing the time of any show it's asking for trouble. Countdown was doing very nicely at 4.30 for 21 years before in 2003 it got moved for no good reason. At the time 'A place in the sun' was put in its place. I don't see any reason why Countdown can't go back to 4.00 or 4.10, as Deal or no deal could quite easily go to an evening slot, and indeed celebrity editions already do get shown in the evenings. Evenings wouldn't really suit Countdown anyway, as apart from the viewing pressure already mentioned, its meant to be a show that can be watched by youngsters as part of an education, so should be there for when they come home from school. That's how it was when I were a lad, and it didn't do me any harm so they say

Rhys Benjamin wrote:

Jennifer Steadman wrote:

Rhys Benjamin wrote:4. Do away with those HIDEOUS new displays. For anyone who read the spoilers thread yesterday, I have fully recovered by looking at Comic Sans MS in Green on Pink.

Sometimes I can't tell if you're trolling or not.

No, I generally hate them! They are HIDEOUS!

I know what a troll does. This is not it.

Oh, I'm not doubting that you think they're hideous (you've made that quite clear). But how many people are going to either switch off or switch on just because of the display boards?

Jennifer Steadman wrote:

Rhys Benjamin wrote:

Jennifer Steadman wrote:
Sometimes I can't tell if you're trolling or not.

No, I generally hate them! They are HIDEOUS!

I know what a troll does. This is not it.

Oh, I'm not doubting that you think they're hideous (you've made that quite clear). But how many people are going to either switch off or switch on just because of the display boards?

I'm seriously considering it.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: 3. Switch it back to half an hour.

Did you even stop to think that losing an ad break would cut a huge chunk out of the production budget? What do you expect them to pay this "good presenter" with? Buttons?

Rhys Benjamin wrote:I'm going to revitalise this thread:

1. Get a good presenter.
2. Put Countdown back to an erstwhile time. The prime-time specials show that there is a market for Countdown (8/10 cats #1 was third that week). Countdown is watched by students and elderly (mainly). The elderly aren't surviving, and the students are still at school/tucked up in bed at 2:40pm. After I advertised Countdown on Twitter, a friend of mine went: "What's it doing at 2:40?!". It also makes the phrase "TEATIME teaser" redundant.
3. Switch it back to half an hour. This would rejuvenate Channel 4's afternoon schedule as: 1:30pm FILM, 3:00pm Face the Clock, 3:30 Deal or No Deal, 4:30 Countdown, 5:00 Come Dine With Me. I often turn on about halfway through and I'm not quite sure which round we're on, especially if it's round 7 or 8.
4. Do away with those HIDEOUS new displays. For anyone who read the spoilers thread yesterday, I have fully recovered by looking at Comic Sans MS in Green on Pink.
5. Have more prolific DC guests.
6. Definitely need better continuity.
7. Definitely need trailers and the like to be shown at prime time.
8. Have more Countdown documentaries like they did in the late 90's and early 00's.
9. Repeat classic Countdown episodes from the late 90's and early 00's. Time can be whenever you like.
10. Go back to the old 14-round final. It always gave more of a sense of occasion.

1. I don't hate Nick as much as most people, I think he's alright actually (except for the fact that her never says when it's a crucial conundrum). If this new presenter is better then that's obviously good, but Nick is fine.
2. Definitely. My school finishes at 2:45. I could usually manage 3:10 (depending on how late the bus was) only missing the starting chitchat, but this is just stupid. Yeah I know about +1 and 47 (glad they put it on that channel), but still.
3. No. Just no. Moving time back is good (see #2) but this would remove a lot of the game.
4. I know they're quite a shock to some people (well, everyone) but at the end of this 30th birthday thingummy they'll seem normal. Trust me.
5. Disagree. As I mentioned about a year ago somewhere (can't find it), some obsessed fan(boys/girls) will just skip through the 'boring' letters, numbers etc. and just watch the DC guest bits. The current ones are fine.
6. Meh.
7. Mixed opinions. Everyone knows what Countdown is and how to play it, so this won't attract viewers. However, as Jen said, everyone still thinks of Countdown as Carol Vorderman.
8. I know the recaps exist, they just need more publicity (particularly among the elderly). This would remove the need for documentaries.
9. Sure, why not?
10. Nah, that format sucks (because of round 7) and it's better that the whole thing be the same. If a new format happens, it should be longer. But it's better as it is now.

I wasn't sure you were trolling until you said 9 rounders with 14 round finals.

45 minutes is too long and drawn-out. Hence, I never play 15-rounders on apterous.

I'm curious - what was so good about the late 90s and early 00s? (I think this is a question that can be opened up to everyone.) My opening gambit: S Club 7.

Michael Wallace wrote:I'm curious - what was so good about the late 90s and early 00s? (I think this is a question that can be opened up to everyone.) My opening gambit: S Club 7.

The Spice Girls, my birth...

Surely the obvious answer to this is just to remove the several hundred new channels that there are on TVs and other receivers and go back to four channels only? Also outlaw any system that allows people to '+' stuff, thereby never having to watch any adverts ever again. It seems a futile exercise to ask people to tax their minds for the fun of it when, if they channel-hop in the right direction, they can watch Jeremy Kyle and the like ad inifinitum.

Failing that maybe we should just accept that he way people watch TV has changed, and some people have no taste.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:I'm curious - what was so good about the late 90s and early 00s?

my birth

Poor mum. Labour from hell.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Rhys Benjamin wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:I'm curious - what was so good about the late 90s and early 00s?

my birth

Poor mum. Labour from hell.

Maybe this is why Rhys hates Labour, cos he was in it for a significant chunk of a decade.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:45 minutes is too long and drawn-out. Hence, I never play 15-rounders on apterous.

Wow, you play slowly!

You guys do remember that you can watch Countdown an hour later on +1, right. I mean, pretty much everyone full access to Freeview now and even if you miss that there's 4oD (terrible as it is).

Having said that, I do hate that it's been pushed back to 2:40pm so Channel 4 can try out some crappy game shows. I remember that Fifteen-to-One was moved back to a time like that and it pretty much killed the show (although there was no +1 then).

I must admit, I preferred the old 'LCD' boards to the new displays but that's just a very small part of the show. Not worth complaining about really.

Mark Ivey wrote:You guys do remember that you can watch Countdown an hour later on +1, right. I mean, pretty much everyone full access to Freeview now and even if you miss that there's 4oD (terrible as it is).

Having said that, I do hate that it's been pushed back to 2:40pm so Channel 4 can try out some crappy game shows. I remember that Fifteen-to-One was moved back to a time like that and it pretty much killed the show (although there was no +1 then).

I must admit, I preferred the old 'LCD' boards to the new displays but that's just a very small part of the show. Not worth complaining about really.

As William G Stewart said at the time, Fifteen-to-One had come to the end of its time, the format was feeling tired, and it finished naturally. The time of broadcast appeared irrelevant to me. As an aside, I agreed with him - even as my favourite quiz, I was getting bored of it during the last series or two.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:4. Do away with those HIDEOUS new displays. For anyone who read the spoilers thread yesterday, I have fully recovered by looking at Comic Sans MS in Green on Pink.

It's been confirmed on here that the reason for the new displays is that MediaCity didn't have the equipment to support the ten-year old displays that were used before, so it's not really fair to criticize on that since the change was a matter of necessity, and definitely not a reason to stop watching.

Mark Ivey wrote:

Rhys Benjamin wrote:4. Do away with those HIDEOUS new displays. For anyone who read the spoilers thread yesterday, I have fully recovered by looking at Comic Sans MS in Green on Pink.

It's been confirmed on here that the reason for the new displays is that MediaCity didn't have the equipment to support the ten-year old displays that were used before, so it's not really fair to criticize on that since the change was a matter of necessity, and definitely not a reason to stop watching.

But like I said, they could have used the Digital font on black.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:But like I said, they could have used the Digital font on black.

The new CECIL looks great. Really, really great. The players scores less so, but I can't quite figure out why that is.

Jon Corby wrote:

Rhys Benjamin wrote:But like I said, they could have used the Digital font on black.

The new CECIL looks great. Really, really great. The players scores less so, but I can't quite figure out why that is.

That weird blueness.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

Rhys Benjamin wrote:But like I said, they could have used the Digital font on black.

The new CECIL looks great. Really, really great. The players scores less so, but I can't quite figure out why that is.

That weird blueness.

Yeah, they just look a bit manky. The new CECIL just doesn't even look like a monitor, it just looks exactly like the number tiles themselves. When you first see it you're like, "what, are they just gonna roll the target in like a conundrum or something?" and then this piece of card starts going nuts and it's just mind-blowing.

Haha yeah, I thought exactly the same the first time I saw it! In fact, I still do. You just don't believe it's going to start jiggling about, and then it does. Every time it does it.

The new CECIL actually reminds me a lot of the system used on the Australian adaptation... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8-mx3RSvOQ

Also, while I doubt it would improve viewing figures, one thing I would certainly change is that I'd have the lights dim a lot more before Crucial Conundrums. The way it used to go dark on the 'Pinstripe' set was perfect for setting the mood. On the 'Blue' set, it just seems like someone has hit the dimmer slightly.

Sorry, double post.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:1. Get a good presenter.

I quite like Nick, actually. Rachel certainly likes him, anyway.

If he did go, though, then Damian and his team might as well bite the bullet and go down the same route as HIGNFY and Never Mind the Buzzcocks...

2. Put Countdown back to an erstwhile time. The prime-time specials show that there is a market for Countdown (8/10 cats #1 was third that week). Countdown is watched by students and elderly (mainly). The elderly aren't surviving, and the students are still at school/tucked up in bed at 2:40pm. After I advertised Countdown on Twitter, a friend of mine went: "What's it doing at 2:40?!". It also makes the phrase "TEATIME teaser" redundant.

I haven't seen anyone, anywhere, disagree with this point yet.

But will Channel 4 listen? They certainly didn't when they moved the show from 4:15 to 3:15 in the autumn of 2003...

3. Switch it back to half an hour. This would rejuvenate Channel 4's afternoon schedule as: 1:30pm FILM, 3:00pm Face the Clock, 3:30 Deal or No Deal, 4:30 Countdown, 5:00 Come Dine With Me. I often turn on about halfway through and I'm not quite sure which round we're on, especially if it's round 7 or 8.

Not gonna happen any time soon, unfortunately.

4. Do away with those HIDEOUS new displays. For anyone who read the spoilers thread yesterday, I have fully recovered by looking at Comic Sans MS in Green on Pink.

As has already been said, this change was necessary.

However, I don't see the point of these displays using the exact same colour scheme as the letter and number tiles. Couldn't they be yellow-on-black, or at least a different shade of blue?

5. Have more prolific DC guests.

Well, bring in some more old game show hosts, anyway. And make Gyles a regular again.

6. Definitely need better continuity.
7. Definitely need trailers and the like to be shown at prime time.

I wouldn't say "definitely", TBH.

And one thing the show definitely doesn't need is overexposure like Deal or No Deal.

8. Have more Countdown documentaries like they did in the late 90's and early 00's.

Those documentaries were only made for special occasions, AFAIK.

9. Repeat classic Countdown episodes from the late 90's and early 00's. Time can be whenever you like.

The only channel that could realistically do that is Challenge - and even then they'd probably only acquire one or two series' worth of episodes, just as (at the time of this post) they've only acquired the first year of DOND and the first series of Bob's Full House.

10. Go back to the old 14-round final. It always gave more of a sense of occasion.

Maybe so - but then that would require getting rid of the 15-round format, and probably going back to half-an-hour for all other episodes (see #3).

Arthur Bennett wrote:

Rhys Benjamin wrote:4. Do away with those HIDEOUS new displays. For anyone who read the spoilers thread yesterday, I have fully recovered by looking at Comic Sans MS in Green on Pink.

As has already been said, this change was necessary.

I think the problem with the numbers display was that they moved the old equipment over and they found the plugs didn't fit, and that it needed plugging in there and then to be ready to use. I don't think there would be a problem in reverting to the old display generally because I'm sure they could adapt them - it was a time pressure thing. But it might look weird changing and then changing back.

Liam Tiernan wrote:

Rhys Benjamin wrote: 3. Switch it back to half an hour.

Did you even stop to think that losing an ad break would cut a huge chunk out of the production budget? What do you expect them to pay this "good presenter" with? Buttons?

I have nothing specific against Nick anyway, but a better presenter doesn't necessarily cost any more money. A big-name celebrity presenter would do, but they all start out somewhere, and I'm sure there's thousands of nobodies out there that could present Countdown very well. Just need to audition a few of them.

Someone hosting who knows the history of the show and actually gets genuinely enthusiastic about countdown will do.

I suppose we were spoilt with Sir Richard Whiteley?

Were we?

At least he knew about countdown?

Nick seems to know very, very little...

Nick knows much more about the words used than Richard ever did.

Richard Whiteley kept the show moving on and often returned to tropes that would come up. Nick bogs down on one of DC's finds and seems to ask the contestants to reaffirm all of his information. Not to mention that he often shows favouritism and was extremely patronising to Kai earlier in the series: "Good boy!" - and look out for Nick's reaction as the credits are rolling at the end of a day's filming... I don't think he wants to be there. He just needs the money.

Richard Whiteley kept the show moving on and often returned to tropes that would come up. Nick bogs down on one of DC's finds and seems to ask the contestants to reaffirm all of his information. Not to mention that he often shows favouritism and was extremely patronising to Kai earlier in the series: "Good boy!" - and look out for Nick's reaction as the credits are rolling at the end of a day's filming... I don't think he wants to be there. He just needs the money.

If Richard did any of the things you deride Nick for (and I expect he did a fair amount of them) you'd call it charming.