Those numbers seem pretty good for what has to be a more limited viewing audience. Makes me wonder what the real numbers are in the U.S. as opposed to what Nielsen reports.

yourlibrarian | May 13, 03:06 CET

Not just that, I think alot of Amercians don't know about how good some shows really are, something DB said.

SeanValen | May 13, 05:24 CET

Sorry don't think I'm going to buy this until I actually see it in print or they at least mention exactly what paper this was taken from - maybe it's the skeptic in me that has kicked in full force now but this seems to be another attemped hoax.

RavenU | May 13, 05:34 CET

How come the description says it's a scanned article when it's really a transcript? Those are pretty different.

It's awesome news, though, if it's real. It's does seem to elaborate to be made up, but that hasn't stopped people. Of course, most people would be too lazy to transcribe all that, so it could likely be made up.

Invisible Green | May 13, 05:57 CET

I'm also extremely skeptical of the legitimacy of this piece, though I didn't want to be the first one to say so. The writing quality is not something that I'd think would be published in a newspaper with an editor (I am willing to give the typos and misspellings a pass as it is clearly a transcription). The source refuses to give the paper a name and there's no link to a scan. This is very iffy.

Prosperina | May 13, 06:21 CET

Of course is this not the same SKY ONE that a few monthes back kiboshed another rumored started about how they were going to pay for part of the 6th season - but then they did a press release claiming that it had been false and they have never discussed any such idea and they actually have no real connection or influence over the ultimate descission, even though they are a RM owned company.

RavenU | May 13, 06:49 CET

I don't think Sky ever denied the fact that they may have offered to pay for half the costs of a Season 6. They just said it was beyond their influence. Perhaps they did make an offer to the WB or some other network, and were still told "no". I am also a little skeptical of this article, but City of Angel has always been a good and reliable site. I see no reason for this to be a hoax. Basically it's saying they offered, and it was still denied. It's way too late now for the show to ever be picked up.

[ edited by kaivaal on 2004-05-13 06:00 ]

kaivaal | May 13, 07:58 CET

The ratings are completely wrong, at least 5 times bigger than Sky One actually gets.

Ocipital | May 13, 10:36 CET

ROFL 5.8 million viewers? Oh that's priceless. Sky One has never had viewing figures like that. It's a fake. And here's why.

According to the official ratings for that week. Angel only got 690,000 viewers. Go here and select 04/04/04 from the drop down menu and then to Sky One from the other drop down menu.

Simon | May 13, 10:40 CET

How bizarre -- one would imagine that someone wouldn't go to such depth to generate another hoax. The poster claimed it was an Edinburgh newspaper; and there is a David Hardie who writes for the Edinburgh Evening News. However, the closest article that can be found on their site says that BSkyB is closing in on only 8 million subscribers.

Reading back over the text, one tell stands out "...over here in the UK." That phrase stands out as unnecessary for supposedly local readers.

Yes, should have caught that, but it was reported to me as being an actual article.

Whedonage | May 13, 12:59 CET

BTW - David Hardie - does not write for the business section either - he is a sports reporter for the scotsman. At least in searching for articles by him that is all that keeps coming up.

Why not if one hoax got attention why wouldn't they propigate another through a different legit channel. That got the result they expected last time so why not try it again.

[ edited by RavenU on 2004-05-13 11:17 ]

RavenU | May 13, 13:05 CET

The length to which people go to make a hoax always astounds me but the figures they mention in that article would mean that one in ten people in the UK watched the 100th episode. Which is frankly ludicrous. And I've never seen Sky One use the Nielsen system of ratings before but I could be wrong on that one.

Simon | May 13, 13:06 CET

They wouldn't use the Nielsen rating system cause I do believe that would also be a legal issue unless there is a Nielsen UK Media Group which I have not found yet. Which they would also have to pay and we have already found out how much the Nielsen people over here, they do not like their numbers published outside of the normal viewing week.

Also the only mention I had ever heard of the DVD talks came from this monthes issue of SFX where JAR had made the statement about Angel movies going dirct to DVD route, but even he said that had not been comfirmed.

[ edited by RavenU on 2004-05-13 11:42 ]

RavenU | May 13, 13:23 CET

Nielsen does have a UK branch: ACNielsen UK:
"The UK division of ACNielsen was founded in 1939 and has a base of over 1000 clients."

In particular, Nielsen Media Research UK handles advertising info.

What also puts this to rest is this Scotsman.com April 16 note on Sky One's highest rated show of the year: Rebecca Loo's interview.

"The hour-long interview pulled in a peak audience of just over two million and an average audience of 1.65 million, according to unofficial overnight figures.

It was Sky One’s highest rated show since the climax of David Blaine’s Perspex box stunt in October last year, which attracted 2.5 million viewers."

Whedonage | May 13, 13:50 CET

However, those shows are the exception not the rule. Like Friends bringing in 51 million viewers had it got that number every week NBC would have paid each of the cast 10 million an episode to stay.

RavenU | May 13, 14:16 CET

Saw a report today (Dail Mail) about how Murdoch junior (CEO of Sky) was only going to be able to take a £10 million bonus this year due to Sky's struggles this year to pick up viewers. Doesnt gell with the hoax.
[br]
Barb do Sky One's official ratings, though there are some other companies such as Continental research. who provide ratings for much smaller channels, I dont think Nielsen UK do ratings, just market research.

Ocipital | May 13, 20:02 CET

And the poster who gave us this story has admitted it was a fake.

Simon | May 13, 21:39 CET

I don't know what branch of the company it is but Nielsen do the ratings in Ireland

garda39 | May 13, 22:57 CET

I'm afraid Simon I have to correct you on one point..sort of
Sky One's highest ratings have been at least 7 million, because one night about six months ago when for the first time, a sattelite channel took over the terrestrial channels in terms of viewing numbers, Sky hit record numbers. There was a big news thing about it and i vaguely remember it . If anyone could get an exact figure that would be great, but considering Eastenders reguarly gets over 10 million an episode (unless Dirty Den returns and suddenely we're talking nearer 20) it would have to be big.

Also, I'm pretty sure that Angel is one of Sky's top rated shows. 24 is definetely the Number One, and The Simpsons are always pretty high up. I would estimate that Angel is at least in the top 5 of their shows

And Season Six? David Boreanaz has said no to doing Angel again (unless it's a big money making movie) and I think I've come to terms with no Angel Season Six, and I think that we should just leave it at that

Apocalypse | May 13, 23:20 CET

"Also, I'm pretty sure that Angel is one of Sky's top rated shows. 24 is definetely the Number One, and The Simpsons are always pretty high up. I would estimate that Angel is at least in the top 5 of their shows"

Simpsons is number one by a considerable margin, the weekday repeats acount for over half of the sky one top ten rated programs (8 this week). 24 doesnt actually do that well at all, its made the Sky One top ten just twice this year ranking 1st in the week ending 15/2/4 (which i believe was the premiere) and 7th in the week ending 7/3/4. Enterprise is prolly the strongest drsma on Sky One at the minute, followed by Angel or possibly Nip Tuck

Ocipital | May 14, 01:01 CET