Joined: 1st May 2004
Posts: 1,113
Jez posted:
Square Eyes posted:
Jez posted:
Poirot was only a repeat though wasnt it? Would have thought they would have had some filler programmes on stand by and tried to keep the schedule as normal as possible
And have the World Cup highlights follow just 25 minutes after the match ended ? Madness. Better the way it is.
Some people who were unable to watch the game may have liked to watch the hightlights, now they will be shown very late.
Yes, but you have to be fair to the team putting the highlights together - if they want to show something half decent, they'll need more than 25 minutes to stitch it all together.
Joined: Before January 2003
Posts: 2,285
London
London
Well OFOH obviously recorded (although I think they recorded two different introductions) as it looked very light out of those windows - and Angus said "see you at 10:15 for the results..."
And look! Moira's working late!
Joined: 1st May 2004
Posts: 1,113
James Vertigan posted:
Well OFOH obviously recorded (although I think they recorded two different introductions) as it looked very light out of those windows - and Angus said "see you at 10:15 for the results..."
And look! Moira's working late!
I'd say OFOH just went ahead as planned and a time delay was put on it being transmitted.
Joined: 30th September 2003
Posts: 353
Mr-Stabby posted:
johnofhertford posted:
The best figure UKTV came up with during the 1st round was 70,000 for a game which was being shown on BBC3/BBCi rather than BBC1. So they won't get anywhere like 500,000 for the final - they'll be luck to get a tenth of that.
Really? That's surely a lot of spent money for not many viewers.
Having said that, are Skys figures worked out in the same poor way that BBCs and ITVs are, or do they actually have a more precise way of tracking viewing figures? I doubt the terrestrial channels get half of the figures they suggest they do.
Agree it seems like it might be a big waste, albeit I don't know how much they're spending on the secondary rights or their production costs.
The figures all come from BARB. Interesting comment of yours - the BARB figures are based on a random sample which gives a pretty reliable estimate of viewing figures subject to random sampling error. (If you don't believe in sampling theory then you're wrong - and it's very easy to prove you're wrong). You doubt they get half of the figures that are reported, based preumably on sticking your finger in the air, and you think this is better than sampling theory. Enough said.
Joined: Before January 2003
Posts: 15,157
Granada
North West Today
Quite interesting with Italy and all the corruption allegations now surrounding the Italian league!
I think the results of the inquiry would have probably been unnoticed by the wider world - but ironically now I think it'll probably be a major story this week!
Joined: Before January 2003
Posts: 3,722
BTW John Helm was the official English commentator
Joined: Before January 2003
Posts: 3,722
Joe Havard posted:
harshy posted:
BTW John Helm was the official English commentator
So what's Motty's origin?
I meant John Helm was the official English commentator for HBS/FIFA!
Joined: Before January 2003
Posts: 3,722
Mr-Stabby posted:
johnofhertford posted:
The figures all come from BARB. Interesting comment of yours - the BARB figures are based on a random sample which gives a pretty reliable estimate of viewing figures subject to random sampling error. (If you don't believe in sampling theory then you're wrong - and it's very easy to prove you're wrong). You doubt they get half of the figures that are reported, based preumably on sticking your finger in the air, and you think this is better than sampling theory. Enough said.
I don't claim my guesses are better than sampling theory at all. I just think that the random sampling system is a bad one. From the way i understand it surely theres no possible way it could be anywhere near exact. It's probably a good system for guessing at viewing figures, however i just find it odd that commercial stations inparticular base the commision and the axing of their TV shows based on these random sampling figures.
I think you have to question why the BBC decided to show the World Cup on UKTV, surely they would know that no one would watch the WC on UKTV!
Joined: 30th September 2003
Posts: 353
Mr-Stabby posted:
johnofhertford posted:
The figures all come from BARB. Interesting comment of yours - the BARB figures are based on a random sample which gives a pretty reliable estimate of viewing figures subject to random sampling error. (If you don't believe in sampling theory then you're wrong - and it's very easy to prove you're wrong). You doubt they get half of the figures that are reported, based preumably on sticking your finger in the air, and you think this is better than sampling theory. Enough said.
I don't claim my guesses are better than sampling theory at all. I just think that the random sampling system is a bad one. From the way i understand it surely theres no possible way it could be anywhere near exact. It's probably a good system for guessing at viewing figures, however i just find it odd that commercial stations inparticular base the commision and the axing of their TV shows based on these random sampling figures.
It's not exact, it doesn't claim to be. It's an estimate, a good estimate, but one which is subject to sampling error. You have a better idea to as to how estimate the number of people watching a programme, and how to make decisions about which programmes to advertise on?
