Re: Doctor Who: RTD in the Radio Times.

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.
 For Ep 4, UK audience 4m. 2.3k UK reviewers. 3.6m others. Possible Disney
audience 6.2m.
 For Ep 5, UK audience 3.4m. 1.9k UK reviewers. 3k others. Possible Disney
audience 5.4m.
 

Laughable, laughable, laughable.

Yes, these are largely guesswork, but with a reasonably sound objective
basis at least at a ballpark level. That the number of iMDB viewers from

They are no where near the continent the ballpark is in let alone the ballpark itself. Whittaker only got 100,000 views on BBC America. Disney+ can't have 20 times that number.

the U.K. looks to be broadly proportional to the viewership seems clear.
That the number of iMDB reviewers would be similarly proportional to
viewers around the world seems like a reasonable conjecture. (Even if twice
as many American viewers as Brits engage - and that seems excessive - the
worldwide numbers would only halve. They wouldn’t drop from millions to
hundreds.)

Do you seriously think that using figures skewed by mass campaigns launched by activists, the Starlights, the Homelanders, and Vought itself fiddling the figures has any credibility at all? The Boys don't think so.

 They aren’t just figures pulled out of the arse as Aggie’s and Doomcock’s
seem to be.

They are figures pulled out of your arse. You are the guy who transforms into multiple copies of himself and start licking out his own arse in a ring that he makes of all of his own copies.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." -William Shatner