|RIVERS WITH GRIFF RHYS JONES||5.13|
|TEN O'CLOCK NEWS||4.79|
|TEN O'CLOCK NEWS||4.7|
|TEN O'CLOCK NEWS||4.6|
|WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?||4.55|
|JAM AND JERUSALEM||4.36|
|THE ONE SHOW||4.15|
|WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE||13.74|
|WALLACE AND GROMIT||16.15|
|THE ROYLE FAMILY||10.6|
|STRICTLY COME DANCING||9.46|
|THE THIRTY-NINE STEPS||7.73|
|HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU||7.65|
|FILM: WALLACE GROMIT||7.54|
TV executives have discovered that there are certain times when people want to watch television, and will switch it on, regardless of whatever is on. It is, after all, cheaper to put out throwaway crap than commission new, challenging shows. Moreover, you can rely on the fact that a certain percentage of the population will watch it, just because it is on. Now, again, correct me if I'm wrong here, but this doesn't seem to be a particularly good business model to me. Not only is it a bit exploitative really ("They'll watch any old shit if we broadcast it"), but also this model is in danger of being destroyed as on-demand video becomes available to the average idiot. As this becomes commonplace, more viewers are going to stop tuning it to whatever's on just because it's on and start picking what they want to watch. We've seen in the last few years TV viewing figures decreasing, and this is because more people are hiring and buying DVDs and watching them instead of tuning into whatever is on TV. For some people services like LoveFilm are coming to replace terrestrial TV. It's not going to be long before "because it was on" no longer becomes a reason to turn the TV on, but becomes a reason to turn it off, and look to different ways of getting entertainment content.
- I wanted to watch it and made a special effort.
- I intended to watch it and made some effort.
- I watched it because it was on.