Surprising Dr. Who viewing figures

[Carol Baynes]

I've been reading the 2003 story poll results on OG and was quite interested to read all the viewing figures listed. Seasons 12-14 (the Hinchcliffe era) were regularly watched by around 12 million people. That's a lot of regular viewers, although it did dip around the 7 million mark on the odd occassion.

But what's with the Graham Williams era?? There's a bit of a drop in figures for season 15, although what were 11.7 million people doing watching "Underworld"?! That's more than some episodes of "Pyramids of Mars"! Surely K9's most watched 'performance? ("Destiny of the Daleks" part one doesn't count!). Season 18 was a ratings disaster wasn't it...There's an episode of "Full circle" only thousands above the 3 million mark. The wonderful "Full circle" for crying out loud!!! I bet more people watched the 1981 repeat!
Going back even further, I always thought "An unearthly child" was higher in the ratings. It took "The Daleks" to do that it seems.

Has it ever shocked you how many or few viewers certain serials got?
Colin and McCoy fans hold your guns- we kind of know why season 23-26 were so low in the ratings so it's no surprise.

[Rob McCow]

Clearly Underworld deserves a DVD release - if 11.7 million people buy it, it'll be the best selling ever!

[Jon Masters]

Clearly Underworld deserves a DVD release - if 11.7 million people buy it, it'll be the best selling ever!

Your logic is flawed Mr McCow. If 11.7 million saw some of it the first time, the vast majority of those will do everything in their power not to buy it.

Easier to con them into buying a crap story that they've never seen

(BTW While it appears that City of Death is the exception that proves the rule, I believe its viewing figures related more to a lack of competition rather than a desire to see it )

[Raston]

Just a shame ratings are no measure for quality-and actually tell us more about what else is on than anything else.

Doctor who on against corrie or something popular= low ratings

Doctor who with no real competition on other channels= high ratings

quality is a secondary issue.

[Andrew Curnow]

I think Si Hunt said something last year, in respect of new season viewing figures. Basically along the lines of, although we in the here and now might say, "ah well, last night was low because of the nice weather, and the footie on the other side", in ten years time, twenty, thirty years, whatever, we'll just have the figures, and people will point at this low figure, and regard said episode as less popular than the others.

It's always been the same - season 24 onwards scored fairly low, partly because the BBC had done a great job of convincing viewers that Doctor Who was unpopular (hence the plummet in figures between the end of S22 and the start of S23) but largely because of being scheduled against Coronation Street. Conversely, as Paul says, City of Death did amazingly well, mainly because ITV was on strike so there really wasn't much of a choice.

Why did the latter Troughton stories score so lowly? Were they rubbish, or was something really good on the other side? Was season 18 crap, or was it more to do with ITV's strong line-up of, amongst other things, Buck Rogers?

They do make for interesting reading, in terms of general trends, but I still think how much the people who watched enjoyed the show, is a better gauge than how many watched it. I watched "Lewis" on Sunday, but I thought it was pretty poor.

[SiHart]

While it appears that City of Death is the exception that proves the rule, I believe its viewing figures related more to a lack of competition rather than a desire to see it

That's possibly true, but what's more fascinating to consider is the fact that just after ITV came back, aside from a few dips for the odd episode, why did season 17 maintain comparatively high ratings? People came back to the show! Only three episodes after ITV returned got less than 9m viewers!

Si xx

[Jon Masters]

I was at you Si - you know my feelings towards City of Deathly Smugness

Its just always made me smile when COD's viewing figures are hailed by D Adams fans.

Anyway, Nightmare of Eden deserves to drag in big audiences

[Perry Vale]

It's always been the same - season 24 onwards scored fairly low...

I'd say it's S23 onwards, the S24 average was actually up on the previous.

[Si Hunt]

think Si Hunt said something last year, in respect of new season viewing figures. Basically along the lines of, although we in the here and now might say, "ah well, last night was low because of the nice weather, and the footie on the other side", in ten years time, twenty, thirty years, whatever, we'll just have the figures, and people will point at this low figure, and regard said episode as less popular than the others.

What I also meant by that, was that it's a short step from finding the reasons for some lower ratings, to actually scrabbling around for any old excuse as to why it's low. Rather like going into battle, the show's 'opponents' and the 'weather on the day of the battle' are part of the challenge. Every New Series episode last year seemed to be accompanied by a caveat in chorus of "yes but it's sunny out", "yes but ITV showed such and such". It's precisely by its opposition of these things that an episode should be judged. So there are no excuses.

That said, something that annoyingly doesn't stand comparison is the overall level of audience figures these days. Today, a good rating would be only a few million more than the figures that got the show axed back in '89 (would this be a factor also over the timespan of the old series? Were there more channels available during "The Curse of Fenric" compared to "Underworld")

So did the McCoy era deserve its poor viewing figures? The show suddenly seemed to have such a lower profile back then. And perhaps this WAS deserved. All these years we've been thinking that shows like "Greatest Show" and "Remembrance" would have got 11m if only the BBC had publicised it and put it in a better time slot. But it can't be denied that Doctor Who had become almost a 'niche' program compared to just four years before when it was a national treasure. Compare the shows profile during "The Five Doctors", Longleat and all, and at the time of "Battlefield". There must have been a reason for that. Contrary to our belief, the show WAS trailed, and it was there, in the middle of the evening, on BBC1, to watch if people wanted to (they didn't). It had three years like this and masses of people failed to tune in. Perhaps if it hadn't been opposite Corrie it might have been a huge ratings hit - but it's a very big maybe. PERHAPS it was simply still not a show that appealed to a mass audience.

Si.

[Raston]

So did the McCoy era deserve its poor viewing figures? The show suddenly seemed to have such a lower profile back then. And perhaps this WAS deserved. All these years we've been thinking that shows like "Greatest Show" and "Remembrance" would have got 11m if only the BBC had publicised it and put it in a better time slot. But it can't be denied that Doctor Who had become almost a 'niche' program compared to just four years before when it was a national treasure. Compare the shows profile during "The Five Doctors", Longleat and all, and at the time of "Battlefield". There must have been a reason for that. Contrary to our belief, the show WAS trailed, and it was there, in the middle of the evening, on BBC1, to watch if people wanted to (they didn't). It had three years like this and masses of people failed to tune in. Perhaps if it hadn't been opposite Corrie it might have been a huge ratings hit - but it's a very big maybe. PERHAPS it was simply still not a show that appealed to a mass audience.

Si.

I couldn't disagree more. Doctor who has never really had popular competition other than corrie, except perhaps the Christmas special this year against Emmerdale. And it was down 1 million viewers. And Corrie is a lot more popular than 'Dale, and even more so in the late 80's when you could easily argue it was at its peak producing its best ever shows and scoring 18 million on a regular basis.

I'd like to see how RTD's series would do against such competition-we know that even a special highly publicised christmas episode can shed a million to a soap, so how would a regular episode do?

If we look at the last 2 years, we see that RTD's who has not actually had any *real* competition- light entertainment shows, reality tv, repeats of movies not in the same league as a popular drama, and don't compete for the same audience (who pulling in 9 million didn't really affect the figures for ant and dec).
If for example a big high profile ITV drama series was on at the same time: Say 'Midsummer Murders' or 'Heartbeat'. Then how would who fare today? Would that core drama audeince be split?

[Si Hunt]

And it was down 1 million viewers.

We're talking two programmes shown a year apart though! There was a host of other factors that had changed - you speak as if it was an unexpected dip 7 days later.

And I'm afraid I don't share Andrew's rampant desire to "see" how the New Series would fare against soaps. It might be a very expensive experiment!

If we look at the last 2 years, we see that RTD's who has not actually had any *real* competition- light entertainment shows, reality tv

Yes, but "reality TV" and "light entertainment" shows are amongst the most watched on TV! How is this not "real compeition"? Ant and Dec was hugely popular when Doctor Who went head-to-head with it (and held its own). The New Series only faced more competition when ITV realised it was going to steal ratings from whatever it was opposite! The absence of any recent competition is an indication of how scared ITV are of the show's audience-pulling power, not a sign that it's a success because it's unchallenged.

Si.

[Raston]

Si, my point was that Drama viewers and 'Light entertainment' viewers are not the same. Hence why Who had little or no impact on ant and dec-and vice versa. Even still their combined viewers were lower than that of corrie was getting in the late 80's.


The viewers that want to watch drama would be more split if their was a choice between dramas on the two main channels. Its why corrie and eastenders are never on at the same time, because mostly the viewers of one watch the other. Who would be in the same possition if it were up against a drama. If primeval has done well enough in the ratings for ITV, i suspect they will be more prepaired to try sheduling it against who next year. To beat who they don't need a success as such, they just need to dent who's ratings and the tabloids will do the rest.

I'm glad ITV have not sent a drama to battle who, and have instead given it an easy time with but competing for a differant set of viewers. But *if* ITV thinks it can do the show some damage then it will, thats the sort of network that it is, because they depend on being the most watched channel.

[Wayne]

The show suddenly seemed to have such a lower profile back then. And perhaps this WAS deserved. All these years we've been thinking that shows like "Greatest Show" and "Remembrance" would have got 11m if only the BBC had publicised it and put it in a better time slot. But it can't be denied that Doctor Who had become almost a 'niche' program compared to just four years before when it was a national treasure. Compare the shows profile during "The Five Doctors", Longleat and all, and at the time of "Battlefield". There must have been a reason for that. Contrary to our belief, the show WAS trailed, and it was there, in the middle of the evening, on BBC1, to watch if people wanted to (they didn't). It had three years like this and masses of people failed to tune in. Perhaps if it hadn't been opposite Corrie it might have been a huge ratings hit - but it's a very big maybe. PERHAPS it was simply still not a show that appealed to a mass audience.
Si.

I'm not here to bash the McCoy era, But Si is absolutely correct here. Especially the point about the shows profile, & the fact that it had become a 'niche' show.
I agree that the whole ratings things is not neccesarily an absolute reflection on the overall quality of the show, but there was definitely a sense that Dr.Who had had it's time, back then. A shame of course, because it had gradually started to get better, but i think the overall public perception of the show had changed. Unfortunately, is just wasn't the 'national treasure' that it had been in the past.

[Si Hunt]

I take Andrew's point about 'different sorts' of viewers, but to be fair part of the credit that Doctor Who should take was that in 2005 it ressurected an imaginative, worthy genre that had previously been written off. It's not through kindness that there's been no serious competition - it's just that until DW came back, there were hardly any great family dramas on to schedule against it.

Si.

[Ralph]

(BTW While it appears that City of Death is the exception that proves the rule, I believe its viewing figures related more to a lack of competition rather than a desire to see it )

Don't forget the hyped publicity of the public knowing John Cleese was making an appearance fresh from the peak of his popularity of Fawlty Towers that year.

[Si Hunt]

Had "Fawlty Towers" been shown yet at that point, given he was filming it at the same time as "City"? I know there was a previous series, but that had been four years before.

Si.

[Ralph]

I'm not sure Si in regard to when the second series was shown but John Cleese was quite a catch (in publicity terms ) in those days.

[SiHart]

Don't forget the hyped publicity of the public knowing John Cleese was making an appearance fresh from the peak of his popularity of Fawlty Towers that year.

That isn't actually a factor to take into account, because it wasn't pre-publicised, as John Cleese asked them not to. It was only afterwards, and for the repeat the following summer that it was in the papers.
So it must have been popular because it was good. Oh and because ITV was off at the time- but people wouldn't have watched it if they didn't want to. Let's not forget, as I said before, the ratings remained buoyant for that year, and through Destiny and City they actually grew... even with ITV being off, if it was rubbish the rating would have dipped a bit.



Si xx

[Raston]

I take Andrew's point about 'different sorts' of viewers, but to be fair part of the credit that Doctor Who should take was that in 2005 it ressurected an imaginative, worthy genre that had previously been written off. It's not through kindness that there's been no serious competition - it's just that until DW came back, there were hardly any great family dramas on to schedule against it.

Si.

A very good point. I think it showed the state that ITV was/is in that they figured that a reality TV celebrity show was the way to go-despite there not being an real examples of reality tv or a celebrity show beating a drama let alone a big budget family drama!

I think ITV have strted to realise this, hence primeval, which while i don't think would or could ever beat DW (they'd need to use corrie, or a football match or something to do that) i think that it would have an impact on the ratings-ITV just have to work out if benting who or saving budget on a cheap show for 45 mins is the better way to go!

I hope obviously that they don't try and take who down, and i think in many ways a lot of their drama department hopes who does well-because it means they can demand more money as drama is clearly the way to go!

[Milky Tears]

You're better off going by audience share/AI figures and chart position.

Top 40 from The Daleks to The Daleks' Master Plan (in the Top 10-20 for most of Season Two).
Fell out the Top 40 from second half of Season Three until Season Eight (bar a handful of episodes).
Back in the Top 40 by the end of Season Eight
Top 40 for the rest of Pertwee's run (some episodes going Top 20)
Back in the Top 20 for most of Season Twelve through to Season Fourteen
Fell back out the Top 40 during Seasons Fifteen and Sixteen
Back in the Top 40 during ITV strike, but down to 100 by Nimon 2*
Crashed out of the Top 100 during Season Eighteen
Back in Top 50 with the move to weeknights
Down to 50-75 during Season Twenty to Twenty-Two (with about ten episodes outside Top 100)
Bouncing around between 75-100 for the rest of the original run
McGann's Top Ten Smash
Top 20 since 'Rose' with eight episodes making the Top 10


Tennant's going for an all-time Who record "Four Top Ten Episodes In A Row" with Series Three opener. Trying to beat his "hat-trick" of 'The Christmas Invasion'-'Tooth and Claw'

AI figure never above 75 ('The Five Doctors') until McGann and 'Rose'. **


It's clear the there have been three Golden Showers of Doctor Who: Season Two & Dalekmania, Early Tom/Season Twelve-Fourteen and the RTD Childhood Raping stuff.


* it was the Saturday before Christmas
** I am aware that they were using a different system back then

[WileyKat]

I think it's also important to realise that the number of viewers is more affected by the quality of last week's episode than it is by the quality of this week's. Also, there are some things that will increase the number of viewers (popular villain, end of series finale, opener etc). In many ways, the AI figures are far more revealing, as they're less affected by exterior factors.

[Si Hunt]

Is that true though? Viewing figures are taken from an average over the whole of the episodes transmission. If last weeks is really good but the current episode is a dissapointment, people are going to switch off and that will be reflected in the figures.

Si.

[SiHart]

You only have to look at the high rating for Time-Flight pt 1 to see that knock on effect in action!

Si xx

[Zbigniev Hamson]

I think the more important question would be why does how many other people watched a particular episode seem to matter so much to Doctor Who fans

Other than just hoping the show remains popular enough to justify its continued existence... who cares?

[Dirk Gently]

Well I suppose it's because we associate viewing figures with popularity & therefore low viewing figures means a cancelled programme.