Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.media.tv.sf.drwho
Subject: Re: Doctor Who: RTD in the Radio Times.
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:37:01 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 215
Message-ID: <v4qhau$vbhu$2@dont-email.me>
References: <xn0on0tk1ebn7yw000@post.eweka.nl> <v4gh7n$2nubg$1@dont-email.me>
 <xn0on2i1cg4kjcs003@post.eweka.nl> <v4ibcj$326dt$2@dont-email.me>
 <xn0on3kobh3r1i4001@post.eweka.nl> <v4li3e$3rtm0$3@dont-email.me>
 <xn0on5eyej4hokc000@post.eweka.nl> <THKbO.75900$2RJ6.8979@fx05.ams4>
 <v4od3t$fqui$3@dont-email.me> <v4p6t8$krih$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4p8ql$l86u$1@dont-email.me> <v4pk6u$nbil$1@dont-email.me>
 <xn0on6qnokg2pcq001@post.eweka.nl> <v4q7bo$trn6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 01:37:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3f1337558111410e27fd92c3541c60b3";
	logging-data="1027646"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19GW0DblfXGHyaXoZHxFI1BS9wlNHOeYJU="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5AviIHGE7hwObuoD1tYgRRb3WrQ=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v4q7bo$trn6$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 11704

On 17/06/2024 21:46, The Last Doctor wrote:
> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>>
>>> Most people giving the episode 9 or 10 probably haven't
>>> watched it either, and that takes away 67.5% of the viewers
>>> along with another 5.5% thus your estimate doesn't hold water.
>>> Only 17% of your 2 million actually watched the episode for
>>> more than 10 seconds, ie. 340,000 and no more world wide.
>>> That's closer to Doomcocks figure but doesn't take into
>>> account the fact than when Whittaker finished her run she was
>>> only getting 100,000 views on BBC America.
>>>
>>> A better worldwide estimate would be 75,000. 50,000 in the US
>>> and Canada and 25,000 elsewhere since it's not being shown on
>>> Disney+ in either the UK or Republic of Ireland.
>>>
>>> And that still doesn't tell us how many people watched each
>>> episode all the way through from start to end. 300 maybe?
>>> Doctor Whoke doesn't represent British culture as the
>>> Americans and foreigners see it so that is probably a fair
>>> estimate.
>>>
>>> Then you need to ask how many people actually watched the
>>> episode all the way through in the UK? Most of them probably
>>> switched out before the episode ended or tuned in at the end
>>> to watch the football. At best I would say only 200,000, most
>>> likely only 20,000.
>>
>> Most fans of a TV show do not switch it off after twenty
>> seconds... you are constantly inventing false narratives to back
>> up your delusional figures. Are the official ratings not low
>> enough for you?
>>
>>> Let Disney+ publish their numbers along with total duration
>>> viewed and let the BBC do the same, otherwise my and
>>> Doomcock's estimates stick. Doomcock after all said most
>>> viewers tuned out for various reasons before each episode
>>> ended.
>>
>> How could anyone, apart from Disney, know that somebody gave up
>> on an episode of Doctor Who before the end? It's not possible
>> for anyone to know this sort of thing, unless they have access
>> to official Disney streaming data, which they themselves rarely
>> even publish!!! But, a guy on the internet KNOWS!
>>
>> Er, okay...
>>
>> Methinks there is going to be some major goal-post shifting
>> going on if Disney extend their partnership with the BBC for
>> more seasons of Doctor Who...
>>
>> (I will bookmark your posts so that we can revisit this
>> discussion if/when that scenario happens!)
>>
> 
> I see Aggie still doesn’t accept how the BARB ratings work. By statistical
> extrapolation from their representative set of 7,000 households (recently
> expanded from 6,000 as the continuing universal decline in overall viewing
> combined with the continued expansion of available channels and consumption
> methods requires a larger sample to maintain its validity) BARB give an
> overnight rating for a show, eg 2 million for Doctor Who. If the episode is
> 45 minutes long that means that they are actually reporting 90 million
> viewer minutes, and dividing it by the length of the programme to reach
> their total of 2m viewers. If Aggie’s belief that only 20,000 watched from
> end to end was true, then if on average everyone else watched only 15
> minutes that would mean 6 million people all tuned in for 15 minutes each.
> If it was only 5 minutes, 18 million people. Etc. Logically it seems much
> more likely that 90% or more of the viewers watched the whole thing than
> that millions upon millions tuned in briefly by accident then turned away
> again.
> 

Wrong. Since they are counting people watching on streaming then they 
must use exactly the same methodology as streaming. 10 seconds counts as 
a view. The duration per view averages at about 1 minute. Thus 99% of 
people don't watch the episode till the end or even from the start.

Advertising brings people in to watch each episode, unless it's devoted 
fans who are watching, and RTD and Chibnall drove almost all of them 
away by writing only for women and homosexuals and telling viewers that 
didn't like it to touch grass. So since we are dealing with advertising 
then we must used advertising statistics too. Less than 1% of people who 
watch an advert actually by the product being advertised as a result of 
the advert. Only 1% of people watching Doctor Who because of it being 
promoted will watch it to the end. Only 1% of people clicking on a 
recommendation by YouTube for my gaming stream or video actually watch 
it till the end.

> As for his other conjecture that people go to iMDB just to rate a programme
> highly that they don’t watch or care about - that’s just deluded nonsense.

No it isn't. Even IMDB recognized that the ratings are all fiddled by 
one side or the other or both.

> The opposite is demonstrably true - the “anti woke” will review bomb any
> show with a female lead or gay themes or a diverse cast - without ever
> watching it.

The woke will do the same for the same reasons.

Have you seen season 4 of The Boys? The theme so far is that the wokes 
and anti-wokes are both exactly the same, fascists, Nazis, communists, 
and bigots. Starlight is no different to Homelander. Both are total 
hypocrites. Have I spoiled it for you?

> 
> But why on earth would anyone bother to try to sway things the other way?
> It just doesn’t seem to align with human nature.
> 

Yes it does when it's woke lies and propaganda that are driving the 
writing. Watch The Boys season 4. The wokes and anti-wokes are exactly 
the same. Both derive their ideology from Vought which was founding by 
right wing Marxist, ie. Nazis.

> In any case it’s an irrelevancy - if the same number of people not from the
> U.K. as from the U.K. are reviewing on iMDB, then most likely the same
> portion of them (whatever they rate it and whether they watch or not) are
> from each demographic.
> 
> On the whole I think my finger-in-the-air view that about the same number
> of people are watching worldwide on Disney+ as in the U.K. , based on how
> many people around the world are voting on iMDB, seems valid. (In fact I’m
> probably understating the Disney audience a bit as people from non English
> speaking territories probably engage less with iMDB than those from English
> speaking territories, but I’m disregarding that in the same way that I’m
> not going to make a guess as to how many of the low ballers didn’t watch
> the show).

Your finger in their air ignoring the direction the wind is blowing in.

We know for a fact that Whittaker was only getting in the region of 
100,000 viewers on BBC America by the time her last series ended. How 
the hell can Disney+ claim 20 times that?

> And if that’s the case then since we know the U.K. ratings to be
> independent and statistically sound, then there are an average of 2 million
> Disney+ viewers on the opening weekend for episode 7.

No. If Doctor Whoke actually got that many viewers it would by in the 
Nielsen Ratings top 10, and it's nowhere near and never has been.

> 
> Going back to episode 1 and 2, the consolidated U.K. audience of 4m for Ep
> 1 generated 2,700 UK reviews and 4,500 elsewhere which suggests that the
> Disney audience builds up more than the U.K. one over time - which would
> give a total Disney+ audience of around 6.6m - which from 150m global
> paying or live trial subscribers (because that’s how the number is
> published no matter what Aggie claims. We know this because the number has
> gone down recently) is a healthy number, one in 25 subscribers fancying a
> look at the show seems fair.
> 

You are totally out of your mind. Doctor Who is getting no more than 
50,000 views on Disney+. That's comparable to the 100,000 Jodie 
Whittaker was getting before it was ditched by BBC America. Lets just 
say it got the same ratings on Disney as Whittaker got on BBC America, 
even then 100,000 views are laughable and only amounts to 1,000 actual 
viewers watching all the way through. Doomcock is right, even if he's 
made it all up.

> For Ep 2, UK audience 3.9m. 2.6k UK reviewers - 4.7m others. Possible
> Disney audience 7m.

Laughable. Whittaker was getting those numbers overnight not over 7 or 
28 days added up.

> 
> For Ep 3, UK audience 3.6m. 2.4K UK reviewers (oh look, there really does
> seem to be a fair correlation between reported viewers and iMDB reviews!) -
> 3.9m others. Possible Disney audience 5.8m.
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========